HB 983 ist eine Rechnung, die von Yasim Neal gesponsert wird, einer von zwei meiner super-super Facebook-Freunde. Es sagt der folgende:
Eine Person, die gewährt wird und sucht eine Familie, um Gewalt gegen diese Ordnung, wenn er oder sie eine Handlung begeht, die die Person in der Reihenfolge, in Verletzung genannt, wenn diese Person eine derartige Handlung begangen hatte, platzieren würden.”
Yasim Neal hart bei der Arbeit
Welche Rep. Neal hat mir erklärt, wie:
Es macht es nur, wo einstweilige Verfügungen sind gegenseitige. Bedeutung, wenn eine Person nimmt eine einstweilige Verfügung gegen jemand anderes, sie müssen von den gleichen Bestimmungen einhalten zu bleiben weg, kein nennt keinen Text wie die Person, sie nahmen das Zurückhalten gegen. Im Moment, wenn eine Person nimmt eine einstweilige Verfügung gegen jemanden, sie müssen nicht durch die Reihenfolge einfach zu halten, weil sie es dauerte zuerst. Was bedeutet,, sie können verletzen sie, und nicht wegen Verstoßes gegen ihn erhoben.
Macht Sinn, wenn sie es sagt.
Those of us who work with domestic violence victims know that this is a BAD BILL. It would gut our protective order system and make it a tool for domestic violence batterers. EVERY national expert on domestic violence, from the judicial system to law enforcement to domestic violence program advocates, say the same. Not to mention this, it also violates the petitioner’s right to due process under the Constitution AND could jeopardize federal funding.
Georgia is already 6th in the nation for domestic violence homicides against women. This legislation will put more victims in danger.
Allison,
Can you explain why this bill would be bad? Give an example?
This bill may sound like a way to make things equitable, but it’s way more complicated than that. When a domestic violence victim gets a protective order against their batterer, it’s a signal to the batterer that she is moving away from the relationship. Seeing that she might be breaking out of his control, batterers often ramp up their tactics by stalking, harassing, and threatening their victims despite the court order. Under this proposed law, when the victim calls police to report his violation of the order, all he would need to do is make the claim that she was the one who contacted him, turning it into a “sagte er, sagte sie” as a way to muddy enforcement of the order against him. It’s a way for him to hold the threat of criminal consequences over her head in order to evade responsibility. And if victims realize that they themselves could actually be held criminally liable, they will stop coming forward to get protective orders, which currently provide a path to safety for thousands of victims across this state.
Allison,
While I could see that being a problem long ago, today, almost all communication is timed/logged. If someone calls on a cell phone, the call is logged. If someone sends a text message, the text is long. If someone sends an email, the email is logged. It would be very easy to see who made the first contact.
Zusätzlich, I think if someone has taken out a restraining order, the victim will likely be viewed more favorably in the legal process than the stalker. Restraining orders would indicate a past history of being stalked – so the idea of a reverse stalker getting a restraining order then harassing another person seems unlikely.
Talk to anyone who works helping victims access protective orders, and they’ll tell you that it really is not that cut and dry in terms of determining who made the first contact. As far as victims being viewed more favorably in the legal process, that is generally not the case. The judge issuing the order only does so after making a finding of fact, and the victim has to prove her case. As to your point that restraining orders indicate a history of stalking – actually, there are several different types of orders, and it’s really just the stalking order that would require the victim to establish that there was a pattern of unwanted or harassing contact. Family violence protective orders are different.