Spatial and Temporal Distance Between the Victim and Offender as a Factor in Protective Order Violations: How Much Distance is Enough?

Research on the effectiveness of protective orders indicates that they have only marginal protective value for the victim. The current research This exploratory study investigated how the physical distance and temporal distance between the victim and offender corresponds to the rate of protective order violations. Results indicated that the rate of protective order violations was reduced to virtually zero when the victim and offender lived 25 miles or more apart. Surprisingly, this condition held for all types of relationships examined (physical, telephone, and cyber). The study concludes with a discussion of the policy implications of the findings and suggestions for future research.

Scientific Analysis of Some Tasks Related to Issuing a Protection Order

The article provides a scientific analysis of some of the circumstances associated with the issuance of a protective order to women who have suffered from violence. The author highlights his views on the concept of “protective order” given by foreign and domestic scientists. An opinion is put forward about taking on a preventive record at the same time when issuing a protective order by involving representatives of the relevant authorities with the subsequent determination of the order of its strict supervision.

Effects of Intimate Partner Violence Perpetrator and Victim Race on Protective Order Determinations

The legal granting of temporary and permanent protective orders prohibits a perpetrator from engaging in contact with the victim. Although protective orders reduce risk of re-abuse, very little research has explored factors that predict the likelihood that a victim is granted a protective order. Thus, we conducted an archival analysis on data previously collected from a Protection Order Assistance Office in a midwestern region of the United States, testing the influence of victim and perpetrator race on protective order allocations. Specifically, we coded data gathered from 490 petitioners (i.e., victims) seeking a protective order against a perpetrator of intimate partner violence, stalking, or sexual offending. Analyses revealed that racial minority victims were significantly less likely to receive a temporary protective order compared to White victims – effects that were exacerbated when the perpetrator was White (versus racial minority). These results are in line with existing research and theory regarding aversive racism. Implications for theory, policy, and practice are discussed.

Firearm-related Abuse and Protective Order Requests Among Intimate Partner Violence Victims

Firearms play a critical role in the murder of intimate partner violence (IPV) victims and there is evidence that laws prohibiting protective order (PO) respondents from possessing a firearm reduce IPV fatalities. However, little research has compared specific abuse tactics involving firearms among victims who have and have not sought a PO against an abuser. This study investigates IPV victims’ experiences with a range of firearm-related abuse tactics across victim race/ethnicity, in addition to the relationship between firearm IPV and PO requests, above and beyond IPV not involving firearms. Questionnaires were administered to 215 female victims recruited from six domestic violence shelters in Texas. Over one-half of victims who sought a PO were threatened to be shot by their abuser and victims who experienced high levels of firearm abuse incurred a 302% increase in the odds of requesting a PO. There were no significant differences between White, Black, and Hispanic victims regarding firearm IPV tactics. The results shed light on the magnitude of risk IPV victims can experience when seeking a PO against an abusive partner.

SECRECY IN PRETRIAL DISCOVERY: HOW NON-RENDERING COURTS SHOULD TREAT PRIOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS IN SUBSEQUENT LITIGATIONS

Simply put, the issue that presents itself, at the heart of this Article is what weight, if any, should a non-rendering court accord the protective orders emanating from pending, settled and dismissed cases in other courts? This Article adds a special tone to the already loud voices on protective-order modification, arguing principally that absolute deference to the issuing court is a leeway for duplicative discovery that places an unfair burden on litigants, a consequence that diminishes sound judicial administration and the Rule-1 objectives. This Article will advance the policy argument that excessive deference to the issuing court is an invitation for absolute insulation of the party insisting on it to decline cooperation in subsequent litigations, which has the potential for engendering further secrecy of bad products and conducts at the expense of public safety. This article will assess the justifications and criticisms underpinning the idea of deference to the issuing court to modify and vacate its orders, emphasizing the validity of those justifications and criticisms and the prospect for meaningful balance to cater for necessary practicalities and the legitimate interests of litigants while allowing subsequent parties to benefit from civil discovery in substantial ways. <div><div><p><br></p> </div> </div>

SECRECY IN PRETRIAL DISCOVERY: HOW NON-RENDERING COURTS SHOULD TREAT PRIOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS IN SUBSEQUENT LITIGATIONS

Simply put, the issue that presents itself, at the heart of this Article is what weight, if any, should a non-rendering court accord the protective orders emanating from pending, settled and dismissed cases in other courts? This Article adds a special tone to the already loud voices on protective-order modification, arguing principally that absolute deference to the issuing court is a leeway for duplicative discovery that places an unfair burden on litigants, a consequence that diminishes sound judicial administration and the Rule-1 objectives. This Article will advance the policy argument that excessive deference to the issuing court is an invitation for absolute insulation of the party insisting on it to decline cooperation in subsequent litigations, which has the potential for engendering further secrecy of bad products and conducts at the expense of public safety. This article will assess the justifications and criticisms underpinning the idea of deference to the issuing court to modify and vacate its orders, emphasizing the validity of those justifications and criticisms and the prospect for meaningful balance to cater for necessary practicalities and the legitimate interests of litigants while allowing subsequent parties to benefit from civil discovery in substantial ways. <div><div><p><br></p> </div> </div>

PROTECTION ORDER: INTERNATIONALSTANDARDS, FOREIGN EXPERIENCE AND NATIONAL PRACTICE

The article is devoted to the experience of using a protection order to protect victims of domestic or domestic violence. The article provides an overview of relevant international documents, considers the experience of a number of foreign countries, as well as the experience of Uzbekistan. The article notes that along with the concept of "protection order", there are the concepts of "restrainingorder", "protective order", "injunction", "restraining order", etc. In the practice of foreign countries, as a rule, there are 2 types of protective orders -issued for a shorter period (by the police) and for a longer period (by the court). In parallel with the protection order procedure, the victim has the right to apply to the court for compensation and prosecution of the aggressor