Nov 26, 2016 4 min read

Dalia Sabae was shot and killed Nov. 10 in Canonsburg by her estranged husband, Michael Cwiklinski, after he murdered one of the borough’s police officers and wounded another.

Sabae had taken out a protection-from-abuse order against Cwiklinski.

Just two months before, on Aug. 31, the life of West Finley’s Tierne Ewing was brought to a premature end when she was abducted and killed by her estranged husband, Kevin Ewing, who had tortured and assaulted her for 12 days the month before.

Tierne Ewing had also taken out a protection-from-abuse order.

In light of these two heartbreaking incidents, some have been asking whether protection-from-abuse orders – PFAs in short – serve any purpose. Does ordering an enraged, controlling husband or boyfriend – or, less commonly, an enraged, controlling wife or girlfriend – to stay away really serve as anything more than a flimsy, easily breached roadblock to someone who is hellbent on vengeance, or is consumed by the belief that their partner is their property, and if they can’t have them, then nobody can?

Studies about the effectiveness of PFAs are a mixed bag. A 2009 study by the U.S. Department of Justice said no definitive answer could be uncovered because “it is not ethically permissible to randomly grant or deny protective orders to compare results.

Furthermore, these orders may ‘work’ at different levels.”

Additionally, some studies suggest PFAs work for those already inclined to follow rules and laws, and would be concerned about the consequences of violating a PFA. As the magazine Psychology Today put it, “Sadly, most (domestic violence) suspects have already proven they are not good rule followers and don’t always fear the police, arrest, jail, prison, or even death by their own hands or via the police.”

A University of New Hampshire study said PFAs were effective in stopping or reducing violence, as did a study conducted by the National Center for State Courts. But studies vouching for their efficacy provide precious little comfort for friends and family left behind after a loved one has been killed, despite their having taken out a PFA.

In Pennsylvania, a PFA mandates that someone leave a residence if they are sharing it with the person who has taken out the PFA, and cease contact with them. Local law enforcement are informed, and violating a PFA could get someone escorted into a jail cell. PFAs also contain provisions ordering that firearms be surrendered, either to law enforcement or to a relative, but that can be hard to enforce – how can you prevent someone from stashing a couple of guns deep in the closet, or, since America is so awash in guns, going to the black market to purchase more weaponry?

During a recent discussion on PFAs at Washington’s Citizens Library hosted by Domestic Violence Services of Southwestern Pennsylvania, it was emphasized that, while they are not perfect, PFAs are not ineffective. They give the police opportunities to make arrests without having to first get warrants or launch investigations. But, as Washington County Assistant District Attorney Kristen Clingerman pointed out, they are a “valuable tool, but they are only one weapon in an arsenal to fight domestic violence.”

A 2014 report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found rates of nonfatal domestic violence had declined by 63 percent over a 20-year period. While it’s unlikely domestic violence can ever be entirely eradicated, its frequency does appear to be diminishing, almost certainly due in part to awareness and education.

That’s good news.

But that it still happens should shock, disturb and frighten. For better or worse, that’s why we will continue to need PFAs.