Jesse Walker | June 15, 2007
Frontiers in criminal justice:
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....
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."
In other words: Casual dating, loveless sex, and gay marriage are still permitted.
[Via Dazzling Knowledge.]
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
I have long been amazed by the imperious nature of judges, who
think they can impose any sort of edict on people. I thought judges
could impose fines and jail time. What next--can a judge sentence
you to no trans fats because you're too fat?
"Thank you, your honor, for telling me how to live."
Assuming he abides by the sentence, any speculation as to what's going to happen to the girlfriend he has in three years?
Episiarch,
The scary thing is that there isn't really any legal remedy from
the actions of judges, except other judges. Welcome to the Imperial
Judiciary.
"Assuming he abides by the sentence, any speculation as to
what's going to happen to the girlfriend he has in three
years?"
What makes you think he'll have a girlfriend after the sentence is
up?
How do you puncture your aorta and live? I kind of thought that would be 100% fatal.
There was a case in May this year in Alabama where a judge order
a convicted shoplifter to stand in public for a period of hours
with a billboard around her neck proclaiming her crime to the
passing traffic.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=453210&in_page_id=1770
Dammit Judge, don't you know this just makes him more appealing to women? "Looking for the ultimate bad boy? I'm forbidden by law!"
Well, he has to ban the man from dating, because if he does date someone and then abuses her, there are no laws against beating up your girlfriend so the cops won't be able to do squat.
How do you puncture your aorta and live? I kind of thought
that would be 100% fatal.
It takes some pretty spectacular intervention. I'm not sure why
anyone would bother but cops and EMT's are trained to render
lifesaving first aid even if they think the victim is a
dirtbag.
Even so this guy's pretty luck.
There was a case in May this year in Alabama where a judge
order a convicted shoplifter to stand in public for a period of
hours with a billboard around her neck proclaiming her crime to the
passing traffic.
Dude was a Mr. Show With Bob and David
fan.
What makes you think he'll have a girlfriend after the
sentence is up?
Obviously, that's not guaranteed. I'm just skeptical of the idea
that forced celibacy for three years is going to improve the way he
treats women.
And, if he's going to have a hard time getting a girlfriend, why
bother with this sentence? Isn't that something that the market
will take care of, as we're fond of saying in these parts?
Steven Cranley...
(rearranges letters..
Ly Steven Crane.
"Ly" is obviously Upper Mogumbian for "Mr.". Therefore, we have
found the whereabouts of the elusive Mr. Steven Crane.
To be played by John Rhys Davies (who, as many of the gentle
readers know, starred in "Tainted Love")
It all makes sense now.
In other words: Casual dating, loveless sex, and gay
marriage are still permitted.
Supporting this sort of snark is why I pay my subscription
fees.
When people bitch about the inflexibility of sentencing reforms like mandatory minimums they should think of this kind os silliness. On goal of determinate sentencing is to get away from this kind of discretionary power which can be exercised in such an arbitrary way. Note that I am not saying I support the draconian nature of much of determinate sentences, just the philosophy of limiting judicial discretion.
I think another judge should sentence this judge to "no judging" for three years. And AA, for shits and giggles.
Justice Rhys Morgan said Cranley "cannot form a romantic
relationship of an intimate nature with a female
person."
Shew! For a second there I thought the judge was describing my
mid-twenties.
Given the story that came out today about the woman that ripped off one of a guy's nards, tried to swallow it, and then claimed she was a really good person and wasn't trying to harm him, REALLY, this guy might want to think about voluntarily extending his sentence.
"Would the judge make an exception in the case of Janet
Reno?"
Watch it, smart guy, or you might just find yourself standing in
the middle of a house fire.
Justice Rhys Morgan said Cranley "cannot form a romantic
relationship of an intimate nature with a female person."
In other words: Casual dating, loveless sex, and gay marriage are
still permitted.
Also permitted: intimate relations with blow up dolls (VM) and
animals...
/runs...
When people bitch about the inflexibility of sentencing
reforms like mandatory minimums they should think of this kind os
silliness.
Frankly, I don't find this offensively silly. The man served 146
days pre-trial. It isn't clear if the judge also ordered him to get
counseling.
This seems silly because it's impossible to enforce. However, if he
shows up again for hitting his girlfriend, perhaps that might be
considered a parole violation.
I don't have much hope that he, and more importantly the rest of us
(i.e. society), will benefit from the judges orders. But I have
some hope, and I am convinced it's less harmful (to everyone) than
a prison sentence.
This must be the second sentence like this. Weigel got the same sentence right before college started.
Frankly, I don't find this offensively silly. The man served
146 days pre-trial. It isn't clear if the judge also ordered him to
get counseling.
This seems silly because it's impossible to enforce. However, if he
shows up again for hitting his girlfriend, perhaps that might be
considered a parole violation.
Right - the news story doesn't tell us much, but this strikes me
more as a "here are conditions for your release" kind of a
thing.
What if this ruling leads him to men? Wouldn't that be
a terrible tragedy for society, having condemned a man to eternity
in hell?*
*Note the HEAVY use of sarcasm
Rapist coming through. Don't get raped.
Keith's my name, sales is my game. Raping was another one of my
games, but I had to give that up
So he can have sex, but he can't have a relationship? Shouldn't they try punishing this guy instead?
24-year-old Canadian man is not allowed to have a girlfriend
for the next three years
Seeing as this guy is Canadian, this is probably like a sentence
not allowing me to bang hot Hollywood starlets for three years. It
sounds bad, sure, but really, what difference is it going to
make?
And I can hardly wait for the testimony when he violates the
sentence.
"Your honor, it was just meaningless sex!"
"He said he loved me!"
PPV Gold.
I need to take this opportunity to make it clear that, although I seem to be serving a similar sentence, I am not under a court order to not have a girlfriend.
"Steve, we've been sleeping together for months, but you never
refer to me as your girlfriend."
"Sorry, court order."
I saw the full version of the article on digg. This guy suffers from a dependent personality disorder, he's seeking treatment in conjunction with his sentence, which i believed was given on the advice of a mental health professional, as of now, it reads like he's not capable of having an adult relationship and making rational decisions. I'm going to have to side with the judge on this one
If he's that dangerous then he should have been given more jailtime for his initial offense.
Cambion,
OK, fine, but if you agree with the conditions that prompted this
ruling then why only cockblock him for three years? What's going to
happen between now and then?
In one of those supreme ironic twists that occur in life, I
think the fact that he\'s court-ordered to not have a relationship
will make him more attractive to women seeking a
relationship.
New York Post:
\"Jailhouse Romeo & Juliet\"
Woman who\'s love affair caused her partner of 3 weeks to be thrown
in jail says, \"We did it for love. There is no greater law than
Love.\" She then sighed longingly.
"Justice Rhys Morgan said Cranley 'cannot form a romantic
relationship of an intimate nature with a female person.'"
So, if he beats a female person, wouldn't that be unromantic ...
and thus allow him to have sex with her?
Or, hell, just refuses to ever buy her flowers?
And how about if he's batin each time to pictures of the same woman
... is that violating the court order?
Shemales OK?
Seems like any competent defense attorney could have a field day
with that phrasing.
this strikes me more as a "here are conditions for your
release" kind of a thing
In both senses of "release".
She: So you what do you do?
He: Actually, I don't have a job; I just got out of jail.
She: Why were you in jail?
He: I murdered my wife.
She: Then you're single?
In other words: Casual dating, loveless sex, and gay
marriage are still permitted.
Okay, so how is this different from the normal North American
romance culture?
. . .and some people wonder why I date Filipinas and don't date
American women . . .
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245