I thought our justice system was designed to prevent hearsay, drumhead trials, and unfair contests? Now enter poor threatened defenseless female and suddenly Padillo is getting a more equitable legal treatment.

To be fair, I'm not entirely sure what we could do about stalkers - both male and female. Clearly our justice system wasn't designed to deal with people who are a threat, but at the same time aren't breaking laws or aren't breaking them in ways that leave evidence trails.

It evolves, sometimes addressing real needs, sometimes pandering to special interests, sometimes inadvertently breeding new problems. Common law and civil law come from opposite sides of the philosophical street yet meet in the middle. The results one achieves one way, the other also generally achieves, just another way.

The process for getting a restraining order is actually designed to offer maximum protection for defendant's due process rights in light of the need to offer protection to plaintiff's interests. It's also not limited to domestic violence, but well rooted in the common law governing equity. Generally, a court can issue temporary restraints in any situation where immediate, irreparable harm will result. Be it domestic violence, improper transfer of property, custody or even landlord tenant issues. In effective, the temporary restraints serve to protect the status quo until a court has a chance to actually examine the evidence pursuant to due process. There's really not a better way to do it. Less protection means the harm may occur before the court has a chance to intercede, more means defendant does have an opportunity to respond.

I'm not sure what jurisdiction the article is referring to, but I'll note the author identifies the standard of proof for getting permanent restraints to be "clear and convincing." While I know that is not the standard everywhere, but in those jurisdictions where it is, it would be highly unfair to label the process as a "witch hunt" or "drumhead trial". Clear and convincing is a higher standard of proof than required in civil cases and can be a very difficult standard to meet.

Clear and convincing?

Yeah tell that to coleen nestler and david letterman

What happen to the cases that the allegations that are unfounded? In these case the restraining orders can go on depending on the judge and the state you are in.

Also in many states it is extremely difficult, expensive and restricted to clear your name and prevent this from showing up on a background check. It will show up most times and hurts the individuals from getting certain jobs, and volunteer positions .

Where is the justice and fairness here?