The Law of Unintended Consequences at work by Geezer

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 25, 2005 5:25 AM

HARDWARE

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.

Me too! I already have a beef with them over the last election and their dog breed specific legislation! Come on America! There's more of us than there are of them! Alaska, Hawaii, no hanging back. I expect every state to do their part!

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 25, 2005 5:30 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

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

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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 25, 2005 8:53 AM

JASONZZZ

That's just completely stupid to begin with. Why is beating up on your "spouse" any more or less worse than beating up a general human being? Shouldn't assault be charged at whatever the level of domestic violence is to begin with?

Please educate me on the differences if anyone knows the background on this.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 25, 2005 9:39 AM

@Geezer:
Wow, all I have to say is, Wow.

@Jasonzzz:
I think that it migth be "worse" because beating the crap out of someone is just that.

But beating your spouse is beating someone that may be dependant to a large degree on the other and thus the beatee has little recorse. They may have to stay with that person because of finanical reasons, maybe their parents kicked them out and they have no-where else to go, etc. The helplessness of it all (from what I hear) is bloody well overwelming. The feeling of being trapped, etc.

So, instead of being able to walk away and/or being able to, in all probability, never seeing that person again, the spouse may have to be with them whether they like it or not.

So, it can be worse.

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 25, 2005 11:07 AM

Geezer: I knew there was a catch.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
That's just completely stupid to begin with. Why is beating up on your "spouse" any more or less worst than beating up a general human being? Shouldn't assault be charged at whatever the level of domestic violence is to begin with?

Please educate me on the differences if anyone knows the background on this.

I don’t think we need two sets of definitions for married and non-married people. One could feasibly claim that there may be a distinction, but it is probably a mistake to define ‘domestic violence’ on that distinction anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 25, 2005 1:28 PM

JASONZZZ

So, my boss can beat me, or maybe my overly zealous landlord comes and beat me a little and I can claim "domestic violence" type of deal? I think they need to even up the level of a plain beating if that's the case. Come to think of it, there are most definitely different levels of assaults as well.

Oh, forget the whole thing.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B]@Geezer:
Wow, all I have to say is, Wow.

@Jasonzzz:
I think that it migth be "worse" because beating the crap out of someone is just that.

But beating your spouse is beating someone that may be dependant to a large degree on the other and thus the beatee has little recorse. They may have to stay with that person because of finanical reasons, maybe their parents kicked them out and they have no-where else to go, etc. The helplessness of it all (from what I hear) is bloody well overwelming. The feeling of being trapped, etc.

So, instead of being able to walk away and/or being able to, in all probability, never seeing that person again, the spouse may have to be with them whether they like it or not.

So, it can be worse.

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

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 25, 2005 4:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

So, my boss can beat me, or maybe my overly zealous landlord comes and beat me a little and I can claim "domestic violence" type of deal?

What?!?! I never stated anything near this! Where did you get this from?

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 25, 2005 6:09 PM

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.

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.

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.

I'm not sure how you got that I said that you've said that. Maybe you are tired or maybe it's the Easter weekend/Good Friday deal and you are worried about the Pope, I can only speculate on any number of wild guesses.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

So, my boss can beat me, or maybe my overly zealous landlord comes and beat me a little and I can claim "domestic violence" type of deal?

What?!?! I never stated anything near this! Where did you get this from?

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

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 25, 2005 6:12 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 25, 2005 7:25 PM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 25, 2005 7:34 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 25, 2005 10:45 PM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 26, 2005 4:25 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 26, 2005 8:32 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 26, 2005 9:39 AM

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?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 28, 2005 10:00 PM

ILGREVEN

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!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 7:28 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? 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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 7:39 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 7:49 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 8:52 AM

XENOCIDE

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:44 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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:46 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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 1:01 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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 30, 2005 4:06 AM

XENOCIDE

'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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 30, 2005 10:24 PM

SOUPCATCHER

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 31, 2005 5:57 AM