Domestic violence in a marriage can haunt both partners long after the courts get involved to protect the man, woman and their children. Court-ordered restraining orders serve as a common tool for women to protect themselves against physically and verbally abusive men. The key, however, is to respect the protection a court saw fit to grant.
The Ohio Supreme Court is examining an unusual case from Newark, Ohio, in which Betty S. Lucas invited her ex-husband, Joseph, to one of their children’s birthday parties. The two fought at the party and the police responded. Joseph Lucas had a history of domestic violence and was forbidden to see his wife thanks to a protective order from the Licking County Municipal Court.
After the birthday party brawl, the same municipal court ruled that Betty Lucas had violated her own protective order, which a Canton appeals court subsequently upheld. The decision said, in part, that Betty Lucas "recklessly exposed herself to the offender from whom she has sought protection."
The move rose more than a few eyebrows among people working to protect domestic violence victims. Opponents to this unique case said if the state Supreme Court upholds the decision, it might intimidate domestic violence victims — preventing them from approaching authorities about abuse.
Unfortunately, that misses the larger concern: the Lucas's are adults; they should follow the court's order without exception. When they stray from it, both should receive equal punishment.
Betty Lucas received two suspended 90-day jail sentences — one for beating up her husband and one for breaking the protective order — and served two years’ probation. The court fined Joseph Lucas $100 for breaking the protective order only.
Both were at fault in what police officials called a "mutual combat situation." Even though his wife invited him to the party, Joseph Lucas should have declined. Betty Lucas should have arranged for a different meeting between her child and her estranged husband.
p >
Nations need to spread resources
The Group of 8 is meeting in Evian, France this week to discuss important international concerns such as nuclear weapons, national security and global terrorism. French President Jacques Chirac, the summit's host, has said he plans to ask the other Group of 8 leaders — most notably President Bush — to shift resources and attention away from terrorism and onto helping less developed areas such as Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. Bush and the other leaders not only should embrace this admirable ideology, but should work within each of their home countries to encourage their respective citizens to also shift national focus and public support to helping less developed countries.
Support for Bush's "war on terrorism" has been widespread in the year and a half following Sept. 11. But what most people don't realize is that improving less developed countries' economies will improve domestic financial situations. When less developed areas have more money to spend, they will purchase more U.S. goods and services, opening an untapped market for U.S. corporations. Improving the quality of life for everyone on a global scale can only make life at home better.
Wealthy nations' resources should not be focused just on providing large cash aid to less developed countries. The Group of 8 leaders should utilize existing skills and areas of expertise in the less developed countries, along with companies in their home countries, to provide people in poorer nations with training to aid their development. If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for life. Wealthy nations must understand this ideology and implement it on a global scale.
The Group of 8 leaders, representing Great Britain, Canada, Japan, Russia, Germany and Italy in addition to the United States and France, have a responsibility to the rest of the world to spread resources. As the world becomes smaller through technology and life becomes more globalized, helping poorer nations must become a bigger priority for wealthier ones. Not only will improving poor countries' economies help wealthy countries, it will raise the bar for human rights and force corrupt leaders in less developed countries to step down in favor of leaders who will take care of their constituencies. When people realize what kind of life they can have, they will not settle for the human rights violations that have occurred internationally.
For its part, the state Supreme Court must uphold the lower courts' decision with the caveat that future offenders receive equal punishments.
17 Archives
