Wedding Ring: A Weapon In Disguise?

Wedding rings are traditionally made of metal and are worn on the ring finger of the left hand. In some cultures, they are worn on the right hand. They are usually made of precious metals such as gold, platinum, or silver. In a recent case, an inmate threw his wedding ring at a corrections officer, leading to a debate on whether a wedding ring could be considered a weapon. The court ruled that a wedding ring is not a weapon, as it is not readily capable of lethal use or of inflicting serious bodily harm. However, some people argue that wearing a ring during a fight can cause more damage to the opponent.

A wedding ring is not a weapon according to a New Jersey court

A wedding ring is not a weapon, according to a New Jersey court. This ruling was made in the case of inmate Gerald Lovelace, who was serving a prison term for a weapons charge. After his wife visited him in 2012, an officer noticed that he was wearing a wedding ring, which inmates are prohibited from wearing. When the officer asked Lovelace to remove the ring and hand it over, he threw it at her.

A hearing officer initially ruled that this was "attempted assault with a weapon," and Lovelace was placed in administrative segregation for 90 days, followed by 15 days of detention. He also received a 60-day suspension of privileges and lost 60 days of commutation time. His ring was seized by prison officials.

However, Lovelace appealed the ruling, and an appellate court in New Jersey overturned the guilty verdict. The court found that a wedding ring did not meet the administrative code's definition of a "weapon," which is "anything readily capable of lethal use or of inflicting serious bodily injury." While the court acknowledged that there might be rare circumstances where a wedding band could be used as a weapon, it was not inherently capable of inflicting serious harm.

As a result of the appellate court's decision, Lovelace was cleared of the assault with a weapon charge, although he remained in prison for the original weapons offense. This case sets a precedent that a wedding ring, in its typical form, is not legally considered a weapon in the state of New Jersey.

An inmate threw his wedding ring at a corrections officer

The officer charged Lovelace with "attempted assault with a weapon," and he was found guilty by a hearing officer. As a result, he was placed in administrative segregation for 90 days, followed by 15 days of detention, a 60-day suspension of privileges, and a loss of 60 days of commutation time. His ring was also confiscated.

Lovelace appealed the ruling, and the case was heard by a two-judge panel, who overturned the guilty verdict. The judges based their decision on the state's definition of a weapon as "anything readily capable of lethal use or of inflicting serious bodily injury." They concluded that a wedding ring did not fall under this category, and while there might be rare circumstances where a ring could be used as a weapon, it was not inherently capable of inflicting serious harm.

This case highlights the legal interpretation of what constitutes a weapon and the discretion involved in assessing the potential harm of an object, even one not typically considered a weapon, when used with harmful intent.

The ring was seized by prison officials

In 2012, an inmate at Bayside State Prison, Gerald Lovelace, was visited by his wife. After the visit, Lovelace was wearing a wedding ring, an item that inmates are not allowed to possess. When a prison officer noticed and asked him to surrender the ring, Lovelace threw it at her. The officer deemed this to be "attempted assault with a weapon" and Lovelace was placed in segregation. He was also given a 15-day detention and a 60-day suspension of privileges, and lost 60 days of commutation time.

Lovelace appealed the decision, and the case was heard by an appellate court in New Jersey. The court ruled that the wedding ring was not a weapon, and overturned the guilty ruling. The ring was seized by prison officials, but Lovelace was off the hook for the assault charge.

The court based its decision on the administrative code's definition of a "weapon" as "anything readily capable of lethal use or of inflicting serious bodily injury." The court found that while there may be some rare circumstance in which a wedding band could be used as a weapon, it is generally not capable of inflicting serious bodily harm.

The inmate was charged with assault with a weapon

In 2015, an inmate at Bayside State Prison in New Jersey was charged with assault with a weapon after throwing his wedding ring at a corrections officer. The inmate, Gerald Lovelace, was wearing the ring after a visit from his wife, which was against prison rules. When the officer asked him to remove the ring and hand it over, he threw it at her.

A hearing officer initially ruled that Lovelace was guilty of "attempted assault with a weapon," and he was placed in administrative segregation for 90 days, followed by 15 days of detention. He also received a 60-day suspension of privileges and lost 60 days of commutation time. His ring was seized by prison officials.

However, Lovelace appealed the decision, and the case was overturned by a two-judge panel. The judges found that the wedding ring did not constitute a weapon under state law, which defines a weapon as "anything readily capable of lethal use or of inflicting serious bodily harm." While acknowledging that there could be rare circumstances in which a wedding band could be used as a weapon, the judges concluded that it did not meet the legal definition.

This case highlights the distinction between an object's potential for harm and its legal classification as a weapon. While a wedding ring, particularly one with a large diamond, could potentially cause injury if used to strike someone, it is not typically considered a weapon in the eyes of the law.

It is worth noting that there may be variations in how different jurisdictions classify weapons, and there are instances where the type of ring and the manner in which it is worn could influence whether it is considered a deadly weapon in an assault case.

Wedding rings are usually made of metal

The tradition of exchanging wedding rings can be traced back to ancient Rome and Greece, where it was first associated with the marital dowry and later with a promise of fidelity. The modern exchange of rings in Western culture is derived from the customs of Europe in the Middle Ages during the period of Christendom.

Today, wedding rings are often worn on the base of the left ring finger, or the right hand if the wearer is left-handed. This is widely believed to be associated with the traditional belief of the "vein of love".

While wedding rings are traditionally made of metal, they are not considered a weapon. In 2015, an appellate court in New Jersey ruled that a wedding ring did not constitute a weapon when an inmate, Gerald Lovelace, threw his wedding ring at a corrections officer. The court's decision was based on the state's definition of a weapon as "anything readily capable of lethal use or of inflicting serious bodily injury." While a wedding ring could conceivably be used as a weapon in certain circumstances, it is generally not considered to fall under the category of lethal or seriously injurious objects.

Frequently asked questions