Where Lexington Herald Leader Sees "[Kentucky] Senate Weaken[ing] Protection Efforts", I See Senator Tom Jensen Making Sense With NO "Dating" Law.
Senate weakens protection efforts
Chairman Tom Jensen and the Senate Judiciary Committee have courageously protected Kentucky judges from having to use their judgment.
As for protecting Kentucky women from beatings, chokings, shootings and violent ambush, well, not so much.
House Bill 1, Amanda's Bill, requiring GPS monitoring in high-risk domestic violence cases, came out of the Senate committee significantly weakened. Protection from electronic monitoring would be available to many fewer victims than in the House version of the bill.
That's not the worst of it, though.
Without one word of debate or testimony, and perhaps unawares, the committee approved a fundamental change in domestic-violence law that could result in more women remaining in danger.
The bill that now goes to the Senate also fails to include dating partners in domestic-violence protections.
The Senate committee did wisely add a number of good provisions from an omnibus domestic-violence bill that the House unanimously approved. But protection for dating partners was not among them, leaving a dangerous gap.
(Emergency protective orders and domestic violence orders are now available only to people who have been married, lived together or have a child in common.)
It's not too late for the Senate to protect dating couples through a floor amendment or by approving Senate Bill 109 sponsored by Sens. Denise Harper Angell, D-Louisville, and Kathy Stein, D-Lexington.
At the beginning of the committee meeting, Jensen, R-London, cited the concerns of judges from across the state. He said judges have said that if HB 1 in its original form became law, they would order an ankle bracelet on everyone accused of domestic violence to avoid blame if someone who wasn't ordered into monitoring injured a victim.
To protect judges from the political risks of having to exercise judgment about who poses a danger, the committee narrowed eligibility for proposed GPS monitoring. Violent violations of a protective order could trigger electronic monitoring. Or monitoring could be ordered as a condition of pre-trial release when there is a criminal charge.
To facilitate more criminal charges in domestic violence cases, the Senate's substitute bill requires everyone who obtains a domestic violence order — not just those seeking GPS monitoring — to meet with a representative of the county attorney's office to consider whether to prosecute the perpetrator.
That sounds innocuous but negates one of the strengths of Kentucky's protective order system: the proceedings are civil not criminal.
Civil proceedings allow people who obey protective orders, which often require staying away from a victim, to avoid a criminal record.
The advantage for victims is that many don't want to criminally prosecute their abuser. It's often someone they love or the father of their children. They may depend on him for child support. They may fear what he would do to them in retaliation. Most victims just want the violence to stop. Protective orders have been shown to be widely effective at doing that.
Fearing that they might have to help put their abuser in jail, and knowing that he'd be out in a short time, victims might shy from obtaining a protective order, leaving themselves and their children in danger.
That would be a terrible consequence of legislation that was supposed to make victims safer.
Chairman Tom Jensen and the Senate Judiciary Committee have courageously protected Kentucky judges from having to use their judgment.
As for protecting Kentucky women from beatings, chokings, shootings and violent ambush, well, not so much.
House Bill 1, Amanda's Bill, requiring GPS monitoring in high-risk domestic violence cases, came out of the Senate committee significantly weakened. Protection from electronic monitoring would be available to many fewer victims than in the House version of the bill.
That's not the worst of it, though.
Without one word of debate or testimony, and perhaps unawares, the committee approved a fundamental change in domestic-violence law that could result in more women remaining in danger.
The bill that now goes to the Senate also fails to include dating partners in domestic-violence protections.
The Senate committee did wisely add a number of good provisions from an omnibus domestic-violence bill that the House unanimously approved. But protection for dating partners was not among them, leaving a dangerous gap.
(Emergency protective orders and domestic violence orders are now available only to people who have been married, lived together or have a child in common.)
It's not too late for the Senate to protect dating couples through a floor amendment or by approving Senate Bill 109 sponsored by Sens. Denise Harper Angell, D-Louisville, and Kathy Stein, D-Lexington.
At the beginning of the committee meeting, Jensen, R-London, cited the concerns of judges from across the state. He said judges have said that if HB 1 in its original form became law, they would order an ankle bracelet on everyone accused of domestic violence to avoid blame if someone who wasn't ordered into monitoring injured a victim.
To protect judges from the political risks of having to exercise judgment about who poses a danger, the committee narrowed eligibility for proposed GPS monitoring. Violent violations of a protective order could trigger electronic monitoring. Or monitoring could be ordered as a condition of pre-trial release when there is a criminal charge.
To facilitate more criminal charges in domestic violence cases, the Senate's substitute bill requires everyone who obtains a domestic violence order — not just those seeking GPS monitoring — to meet with a representative of the county attorney's office to consider whether to prosecute the perpetrator.
That sounds innocuous but negates one of the strengths of Kentucky's protective order system: the proceedings are civil not criminal.
Civil proceedings allow people who obey protective orders, which often require staying away from a victim, to avoid a criminal record.
The advantage for victims is that many don't want to criminally prosecute their abuser. It's often someone they love or the father of their children. They may depend on him for child support. They may fear what he would do to them in retaliation. Most victims just want the violence to stop. Protective orders have been shown to be widely effective at doing that.
Fearing that they might have to help put their abuser in jail, and knowing that he'd be out in a short time, victims might shy from obtaining a protective order, leaving themselves and their children in danger.
That would be a terrible consequence of legislation that was supposed to make victims safer.
Labels: Crime, Kentucky politics, Public safety, Punishment
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 2:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home