h a l f b a k e r y
You could have thought of that.
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
Login
Create account.
|
|
|
Here in the US a judge typically issues a restraining order telling a stalker that he has to stay 'x' distance away from the complaintant. The stalker says sure and off he goes. A lot of times this results in the complaintant being attacked again, or in extreme cases, murdered. Why? Because the stalker
simply lied. It might be smarter for us to put the stalker on mobile house arrest. Under this system they would wear the same kind of ankle bracelet that people under normal house arrest wear, only it wouldn't go off when they left the house. Instead, its companion device (a fashionable watch, cellphone, etc...) worn by the protected person would go off if the stalker entered the forbidden zone (calculated by the GPS distance between the two devices). The complaintant could then choose to press an override button so the police weren't called, or they could do nothing and a call would automatically be placed to 911.
B5 Crusade
http://www.visi.com...opsis/crusade7.html
"The Rules of the Game" [JakePatterson, Nov 06 2004]
Related Idea
http://www.halfbake.../Stalker_20Detector
[theircompetitor, Nov 07 2004]
[link]
|
| |
Here these things get issued without much or any investigation into the circumstances. This would have to change first. Otherwise innocent people would get caught up in a system they need have no part of. But how to protect the potential victims? Crossaint. |
|
| |
This is a good idea. I was thinking it would be a restraining order for obsessive over-texters though, that'd be useful. |
|
| |
Reminds me of an episode of the Babylon 5 spinnoff, Crusade. Link. |
|
| |
As regards the 'fashionable watch' suggestion, why not have a big, heavy metal thing the victim has to wear around their neck to remind them there's somebody evil after them. The victim wants peace of mind don't they? Not continual self consciousness - "I wonder what time it is, oh, I forgot about my stalker for a fraction of a second". "Nice bracelet, where did you get it?", "Oh, it's from my stalker." |
|
| |
Made me laugh really hard [weedy]. |
|
| |
One of the more practical ideas of the last while. |
|
| |
So the idea is that if a man spends $100 on tickets to a concert, he'd be forbidden from actually attending (and would have to eat the $100) if his estranged whomever had, unbeknownst to him, also bought tickets? |
|
| |
The fundamental purpose of a restraining order is to make clear, in case of conflict, which party is at fault. If a woman has a restraining order against a man, and the man is subsequently found in the woman's house with a load of buckshot in his chest, the restraining order will make it easier for the police to determine "who started it". |
|
| |
Of course, if the man was smart enough to seek out a reciprocal restraining order, then the police would instead find the disarmed woman in her home beaten to death, but that's another discussion. |
|
| |
Seriously, though, how is a person supposed to stay out of forbidden places without knowing where they are? Sounds like a totally bizarre and crazy idea to me. |
|
| |
The stalker's device could be designed to emit a warning when he came within twice the distance the law allowed (for example, at 200 yards if the restraining order was for 100 yards). That way he'd be warned to back off. As for eating the price for the show, that would just be part of the price he paid for being a stalker (and a much lower price than he made the victim pay in the past). After he'd been a good boy for a reasonable amount of time and the restraining order was lifted he could go back to seeing any show he wanted without fear of wasting the 100 bucks. |
|
| |
//that would just be part of the price he paid for being a stalker //
In the vast majority of cases restraining orders are interim measures applied by the civil courts on a fairly slack test, before any alleged criminal activity even comes to proof. |
|
| |
//In the vast majority of cases restraining orders are interim measures applied by the civil courts on a fairly slack test, before any alleged criminal activity even comes to proof.// |
|
| |
In many cases, they're issued before any criminal activity is even ALLEGED. If a peson has no particular right to go near someone else's house, an order forbidding them from doing so is not a punishment and may thus be issued without allegation--much less proof--of wrongdoing. The mere fact that the person seeking the order doesn't want the other person near their house is sufficient. What is proposed here, however, would be very much a punishment. |
|
| |
Further, as noted, much of the purpose of a restraining order is to establish, in case of conflict, "who started it". A mobile restraining order would make it possible for the person who sought it to deliberately make life miserable for the target, throwing the "who started it" issue out the window. |
|
| |
Thank you 'jscottpete'. Looking at this again it also occured to me, why not put an ankle bracelet on the stalker and the stalkee. Sod it, just lock up the stalkee for their own safety.
Relatedly, my ex had a stalker and she didn't tell me (thought it was a personal matter (huh?)). She pointed him out in the street one day and he never came back. Funny chap. |
|
| |
calum and supercat - As in all things, a certain amount of judgement should be applied. A woman being released from the hospital after being treated for a severe beating would be able to make a much better case for one of these mobile restraining orders than a woman who said her boyfriend just gave her a dirty look. (And no, the man who beat the first woman wouldn't necessarily be safely locked away in a jail cell for her protection - it's much more likely that he'd be out on bail in the US.) |
|
| |
Good idea, and with the upcoming real id program in the u.s., pretty plausible in the the very near future. |
|
| |
I like it. Determining whether or not the restraining order is fairly applied is for another group of judicial officials to decide. Once an order of protection is in place, it needs to be enforced or it becomes a request of protection. Yes, let's put potential stalkers on the honor system, and when they walk through the order and kill the victim, say "well, we just didn't think it was fair." Kinda voids the point, doesn't it? If your problem is with wrongly applied protection orders, then you need to go after the application system. This is a great idea, bun! |
|
| |