HB 983 es un proyecto de ley que está patrocinado por Yasim Neal, uno de dos de mis súper impresionante amigos de Facebook. Dice lo siguiente:
Una persona que busca y se le concede una orden de violencia en la familia viola el orden como cuando él o ella comete cualquier acto que ponga a la persona nombrada en la orden en la violación, si esa persona hubiera cometido tal acto.”
Yasim Neal duro en el trabajo
¿Qué Rep. Neal me explicó como:
Simplemente hace que las órdenes de alejamiento son recíprocas. Sentido, si una persona tiene una orden de restricción en contra de otra persona, que tienen que cumplir con las mismas estipulaciones que se mantenga alejado, No llama a ningún texto como la persona que tomó la salida de restricción en contra. Ahora mismo, si una persona tiene una orden de restricción en contra de alguien, que no tienen que cumplir con la orden, simplemente porque se lo llevaron, en primer lugar. Lo que significa que, se puede violar la, y no ser acusado de violar la.
Tiene sentido cuando lo dice.
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 “he said, dijo” 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.
Además, 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.