Supreme Court to Weigh in on Due Process and Domestic Violence
Quote:A rare and tragic family law challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court will draw the justices this month into the serious nationwide problem of domestic violence and the continuing difficulty of enforcement of one of the most important weapons against that violence -- protection orders.
In Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales, No. 04-728, the high court will consider whether a civil rights remedy is available to domestic violence victims whose pleas to enforce protection orders go unheeded by local police departments.
"In concrete terms: Does the government have a constitutional duty to protect us against private violence? Or is the Constitution, as has been put by several people, a charter of negative liberties -- it keeps the government's hands off of us?"
What is your position on this issue?
If we take a look at the Declaration of Independence, our forefathers TOLD us why we form governments. All individuals are born with inalienable rights (rights that we may not voluntarily surrender to the government), and among those rights are LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. TO SECURE THOSE RIGHTS, people form governments . . .
Without government, each and every one of us would be left to our devices to protect our individual rights to LIFE and LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Because we formed government to secure those rights . . . and our government is one of law . . . we are NOT allowed to take the law into our own hands. If someone is threatening our life or liberty or happiness . . . we must resort to the law for our protection.
We are not allowed to defend ourselves unless our lives or bodily integrity are in imminent danger. For instance, would-be rape victim can kill her attacker in justifiable self-defense to ward off the attack or to stop the attack . . . but once the attacker has ceased the attack, the danger is gone and the rape victim cannot injure or kill her attacker. Justice must be left to the law.
Inasmuch as we are not allowed to take the law into our own hands and will be punished if we do so when our own lives/bodily integrity is not in imminent danger . . . and our government instead requires us to seek the protection of government, (e.g., through obtaining protection orders to keep would-be dangerous people away from us), shouldn't the government be held liable for damages if the government fails to enforce a protection order?
What are your views? Inasmuch as we are not allowed to take the law into our own hands, does the government have an affirmative duty to protect us from a known source of potential harm?