Court order : no girlfriend for 3 years

[Bertie Wooster]

Linky

Judge Orders Man Not to Have Girlfriend
Advertisement
News Video
Buy AP Photo Reprints

PETERBOROUGH, Ontario (AP) -- A judge has ruled that a 24-year-old Canadian man is not allowed to have a girlfriend for the next three years.

The ruling came after Steven Cranley pleaded guilty on Tuesday to several charges stemming from an assault on a former girlfriend.

Cranley, who has been diagnosed with a dependent personality disorder, attacked his girlfriend in an argument after their breakup.

He tried to prevent her from phoning the police by cutting her phone cord and punched and kicked her. He finally stabbed himself with a butcher knife when police did arrive, puncturing his aorta.

Doctors say Cranley has difficulty coping with rejection and runs a high risk to re-offend if he becomes involved in another intimate relationship.

Justice Rhys Morgan said Cranley "cannot form a romantic relationship of an intimate nature with a female person.

"That is the only way I can see the protection of the public is in place until you get the counseling you need."

Cranley had already served 146 days in pre-trail custody, which Morgan said was enough jail time in this case.

His lawyer says the no girlfriend order is the first of its kind that he has encountered.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

I think this is a good court order and should be given out a lot more as there's a lot more guys out there who shouldn't be allowed to have girlfriends because they are a menace and need counseling before messing up other peoples' lives.

[Adrian Laguna]

The ruling has the wee problem of the fact that the word "girlfriend" is not defined in the lawbooks. I'm sure the judge can use his judgement if the police bring the guy in on suspicion of violating his court order, but still it's a bit ambiguous.

[Dark Flame]

I wonder how they defined "girlfriend."
The article says:

romantic relationship of an intimate nature with a female person

but according to the letter of the law he could still form a homosexual relationship, or a non-inimate relationship with a woman. The definition of "intimate" could cause problems too.

Anyways, I think that in his case it seems necessary to not allow him to have a girlfriend, but it also seems to violate some basic rights. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and all that.

[Death from the Sea]

I wonder how they defined "girlfriend."
The article says:

romantic relationship of an intimate nature with a female person

but according to the letter of the law he could still form a homosexual relationship, or a non-inimate relationship with a woman. The definition of "intimate" could cause problems too.

Anyways, I think that in his case it seems necessary to not allow him to have a girlfriend, but it also seems to violate some basic rights. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and all that.

indeed, I don't see this really being able to withstand the appeal process

[Aaron]

Guys this is in Canada, so it would have to be in line with the Charter of Rights. Perhaps a question for the Supreme Court if he's got the money to take it that far.

[General Zod]

I wonder how they defined "girlfriend."
The article says:

romantic relationship of an intimate nature with a female person

but according to the letter of the law he could still form a homosexual relationship, or a non-inimate relationship with a woman. The definition of "intimate" could cause problems too.

Anyways, I think that in his case it seems necessary to not allow him to have a girlfriend, but it also seems to violate some basic rights. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and all that.

I don't see how it's a violation exactly. Pedophiles are prevented from having contact with children, so wife/girlfriend abusers should be prevented from having a a relationship. It's not as if this is permanent or anything.

[Death from the Sea]

I wonder how they defined "girlfriend."
The article says:

romantic relationship of an intimate nature with a female person

but according to the letter of the law he could still form a homosexual relationship, or a non-inimate relationship with a woman. The definition of "intimate" could cause problems too.

Anyways, I think that in his case it seems necessary to not allow him to have a girlfriend, but it also seems to violate some basic rights. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and all that.

I don't see how it's a violation exactly. Pedophiles are prevented from having contact with children, so wife/girlfriend abusers should be prevented from having a a relationship. It's not as if this is permanent or anything.

the difference would be that the pedophile can't have a relationship (the intimate kind) with any child ever, plus you are protecting the children.

If the guy is abusive then he should be in jail and not on probation,

[General Zod]

the difference would be that the pedophile can't have a relationship (the intimate kind) with any child ever, plus you are protecting the children.

If the guy is abusive then he should be in jail and not on probation,

I'm not following your reasoning here. By your very same logic you're protecting women by denying an abusive asshole the right to have relationships with them. Especially since according to the article the guy's already served time in jail, and the 3 year period would only be while he seeks counseling for his problem.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I wonder how they defined "girlfriend."
The article says:

romantic relationship of an intimate nature with a female person

but according to the letter of the law he could still form a homosexual relationship, or a non-inimate relationship with a woman. The definition of "intimate" could cause problems too.

Anyways, I think that in his case it seems necessary to not allow him to have a girlfriend, but it also seems to violate some basic rights. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and all that.

I don't see how it's a violation exactly. Pedophiles are prevented from having contact with children, so wife/girlfriend abusers should be prevented from having a a relationship. It's not as if this is permanent or anything.

While I don't see it as a 'violation', seeing as how he broke the law, proved himself a danger to others, and so for the good of society should have his rights restricted. People in jail obviously don't have the right to 'liberty' or 'the pursuit of happiness'.

But this still has loads of problems. It's really easy to draw up a legal definition of 'children' by selecting a suitably safe high-end age and stating anyone below that is a child.

But how the hell are you going to do that for 'girlfriend'? "Romantic relationship of an intimate nature with a female person'?

What's the legal definition of romantic? Relationship? Intimate nature? Would fucking a prostitute count as a violation of this? How about having some female friend confide deep secrets to you, but never actually having sex with you, is that a violation? As pointed out, what about having a relationship with a guy? This is potentially opening up a rather nasty can of worms.

Just throw the abusive fuck in jail, or place him on a restrictive, supervised parole, and if he does it again, toss him in the slammer for a good long time.

[Uraniun235]

the difference would be that the pedophile can't have a relationship (the intimate kind) with any child ever, plus you are protecting the children.

If the guy is abusive then he should be in jail and not on probation,

I'm not following your reasoning here. By your very same logic you're protecting women by denying an abusive asshole the right to have relationships with them. Especially since according to the article the guy's already served time in jail, and the 3 year period would only be while he seeks counseling for his problem.

I think what he's getting at is that any pedophiliac relationship is inherently abusive, whereas it's possible (albeit, not likely) for this asshole to form a non-abusive relationship with another woman.

That said, I don't have a problem with the ruling, it sounds reasonable enough.

[Darth Wong]

I wonder how they defined "girlfriend."
The article says:

romantic relationship of an intimate nature with a female person

but according to the letter of the law he could still form a homosexual relationship, or a non-inimate relationship with a woman. The definition of "intimate" could cause problems too.

Anyways, I think that in his case it seems necessary to not allow him to have a girlfriend, but it also seems to violate some basic rights. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and all that.

News flash: when you go to jail, your right to liberty is taken away. That's what happens when you break the law, and this is no different.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

the difference would be that the pedophile can't have a relationship (the intimate kind) with any child ever, plus you are protecting the children.

If the guy is abusive then he should be in jail and not on probation,

I'm not following your reasoning here. By your very same logic you're protecting women by denying an abusive asshole the right to have relationships with them. Especially since according to the article the guy's already served time in jail, and the 3 year period would only be while he seeks counseling for his problem.

I think what he's getting at is that any pedophiliac relationship is inherently abusive, whereas it's possible (albeit, not likely) for this asshole to form a non-abusive relationship with another woman.

That said, I don't have a problem with the ruling, it sounds reasonable enough.

Am I the only one who sees this ruling as highly unreasonable? As much as I hate legalese, I really think it's needed in this case because the legal definition of 'girlfriend' makes no sense, legally. What if he meets some weak-willed girl, gets into a relationship, abuses her, and they haul him to court? And then she comes up on the witness stand and testifies that she is not, in fact, his girlfriend. There's no way to verify or falsify that because the definition is too damn vague.

[Dark Flame]

Am I the only one who sees this ruling as highly unreasonable? As much as I hate legalese, I really think it's needed in this case because the legal definition of 'girlfriend' makes no sense, legally. What if he meets some weak-willed girl, gets into a relationship, abuses her, and they haul him to court? And then she comes up on the witness stand and testifies that she is not, in fact, his girlfriend. There's no way to verify or falsify that because the definition is too damn vague.

That's one of the points I was trying to get at. So no, you are not the only person that sees the ruling as unreasonable.

[Darth Wong]

Am I the only one who sees this ruling as highly unreasonable? As much as I hate legalese, I really think it's needed in this case because the legal definition of 'girlfriend' makes no sense, legally. What if he meets some weak-willed girl, gets into a relationship, abuses her, and they haul him to court? And then she comes up on the witness stand and testifies that she is not, in fact, his girlfriend. There's no way to verify or falsify that because the definition is too damn vague.

"Did he kiss you?" "Did he tell you that he loves you?" "Did you have sexual relations?"

For fuck's sake, relationships have been a matter for the courts ever since marriage was made into a legal concept. It's not hard to define it in a legal sense.

[General Zod]

I'm not following your reasoning here. By your very same logic you're protecting women by denying an abusive asshole the right to have relationships with them. Especially since according to the article the guy's already served time in jail, and the 3 year period would only be while he seeks counseling for his problem.

I think what he's getting at is that any pedophiliac relationship is inherently abusive, whereas it's possible (albeit, not likely) for this asshole to form a non-abusive relationship with another woman.

That said, I don't have a problem with the ruling, it sounds reasonable enough.

Am I the only one who sees this ruling as highly unreasonable? As much as I hate legalese, I really think it's needed in this case because the legal definition of 'girlfriend' makes no sense, legally. What if he meets some weak-willed girl, gets into a relationship, abuses her, and they haul him to court? And then she comes up on the witness stand and testifies that she is not, in fact, his girlfriend. There's no way to verify or falsify that because the definition is too damn vague.

How is it unreasonable when he's a high risk re-offender? It seems like the only people are complaining about is that the definition of "girlfriend" is too vague. It's only 3 years for fuck's sake.

[General Zod]

I think what he's getting at is that any pedophiliac relationship is inherently abusive, whereas it's possible (albeit, not likely) for this asshole to form a non-abusive relationship with another woman.

That said, I don't have a problem with the ruling, it sounds reasonable enough.

Am I the only one who sees this ruling as highly unreasonable? As much as I hate legalese, I really think it's needed in this case because the legal definition of 'girlfriend' makes no sense, legally. What if he meets some weak-willed girl, gets into a relationship, abuses her, and they haul him to court? And then she comes up on the witness stand and testifies that she is not, in fact, his girlfriend. There's no way to verify or falsify that because the definition is too damn vague.

How is it unreasonable when he's a high risk re-offender? It seems like the only people are complaining about is that the definition of "girlfriend" is too vague. It's only 3 years for fuck's sake.

Ghetto edit: The only thing people are complaining about.

[Akhlut]

Anyways, I think that in his case it seems necessary to not allow him to have a girlfriend, but it also seems to violate some basic rights. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and all that.

Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are not rights at all. They're merely part of the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legal document.

And they don't even apply to this man, as he's a Canadian getting his punishment from Canada (as has already been brought up before).

Anyway, was this guy mandated by the court to go to counseling? If not, isn't the three years without a girlfriend thing kind of useless in the long-term? While he might shape up a bit in three years naturally, there's also the very real possibility that it just exacerbates his problem by making him continually more desperate for a romantic relationship and that when his three years is up, he'll get a girlfriend and be even more twisted than he is now. I know the judge said that this will give him the time he needs to go to counseling, but does that mean he is forced to get it or is it just something he can do if he so chooses?

[General Zod]

Anyway, was this guy mandated by the court to go to counseling? If not, isn't the three years without a girlfriend thing kind of useless in the long-term? ?

That seems to be implied in the article.

"That is the only way I can see the protection of the public is in place until you get the counseling you need."

[Akhlut]

That seems to be implied in the article.

Ah, found another article which says a bit more explicitly that he is, in fact, getting counseling: link

Man sentenced to 'solitary,' but not jail

GALEN EAGLE, Ont., June 14 (UPI) -- An Ontario man with anger management issues has been given probation and ordered by a Canadian judge not to have a girlfriend for the next three years.

The unique "solitary" sentence was handed down Wednesday in a Galen Eagle courtroom to 24-year-old Steven Cranley in connection with a violent argument that broke out Jan. 17 with his estranged girlfriend and her roommate.

The fracas resulted in the two women being beaten by Cranley, who also cut phone lines in the home to prevent them from calling police.

Cranley was diagnosed after his arrest as having a "dependent personality disorder" that makes him unable to handle rejection, the Peterborough (Ont.) Examiner reported.

Prosecutors said Cranley would pose a threat to anyone he became romantically involved with. The judge agreed and ordered him to stay away from romance for three years while he undergoes counseling.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

How is it unreasonable when he's a high risk re-offender? It seems like the only people are complaining about is that the definition of "girlfriend" is too vague. It's only 3 years for fuck's sake.

Actually, I was saying that it was an unreasonably mild and ambiguous punishment. I'd rather see him placed in prison, a psychiatric ward, or otherwise removed from society because the mentally deranged fuck could have easily killed the woman, and still strongly runs that risk.

Anyways, I was under the impression that 'girlfriend' was a rather nebulous concept as far as the court-system was concerned. But I'll concede the point as it doesn't appear to be true.

[General Zod]

How is it unreasonable when he's a high risk re-offender? It seems like the only people are complaining about is that the definition of "girlfriend" is too vague. It's only 3 years for fuck's sake.

Actually, I was saying that it was an unreasonably mild and ambiguous punishment. I'd rather see him placed in prison, a psychiatric ward, or otherwise removed from society because the mentally deranged fuck could have easily killed the woman, and still strongly runs that risk.

He had already served what the judge ruled to be enough time in jail. At this point the most you can do is put him through psychiatric help and hope that he doesn't do anything again.

[Aenigma]

No "girlfriend"? Would friends with benefits qualify under that? How about a drunken one night stand? A prostitute?

[Tribun]

I want to see how they plan to actually enforce and control that.

Really...the practical problem that they actually can't, makes this ruling rather useless.

[General Zod]

I want to see how they plan to actually enforce and control that.

Really...the practical problem that they actually can't, makes this ruling rather useless.

Unless they put him on one of those GPS devices that tracks your movements constantly for the next 3 years and limit the places he can go, anyway.

[brianeyci]

I don't see the problem of people saying this ruling wouldn't work. If courts can define relationships through marriage and kinship, they can define relationships through sex. The main point of a girlfriend is sex, and I don't see a problem with identifying girlfriends.

As for Dark Flame's "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" it's a rather subtle but annoying problem with many Americans who think that because they consider certain "rights" sacred and applicable to them, they're applicable to the whole world. They don't stop to consider that these "rights" are not rights at all but words taken from a legal document and no better than legalism.

True universal rights do not include the right to have a girlfriend once you've proven yourself not responsible enough to have one. This should be obvious to anyone, except constitution worshipping whores. The very concept of prison and jails removes so-called "rights." Driving is not a right, it's a privilege, owning a gun is not a right, it's a privilege, and having a girlfriend is not a right, it's a privilege that the state could or should be able to take away if you prove yourself irresponsible.

In short the meaning of the word right to any person should be inalienable except in very extreme circumstances. Just because Thomas Jefferson said some rights are inalienable on a piece of paper, that doesn't mean it's necessarily true, except to jingoistic fucks.