The man held a broken bottle to his girlfriend’s neck and threatened to kill her. When she managed to break away, he chased her out of the house with scissors.
Police eventually arrested the boyfriend, who was charged with assault.
But last week, when Vancouver prosecutor Camara Banfield asked a judge to set bail in the case at $50,000, the judge declined. Bail was set at just $5,000.
And if convicted of a first-time felony, the abuser could get off with a sentence of as little as three months, she said.
It’s a symptom of the way the state criminal justice system regards domestic violence, says Banfield, one of six prosecutors assigned to the Clark County Domestic Violence Prosecution Center.
“Some courts, when they hear the term ‘domestic violence,’ automatically set the sentence lighter,” she said. “There are a couple of judges in the community who still see domestic violence as something that can be taken care of in the home or through marriage counseling.”
Vancouver Police Sgt. Mike Davis, who works with the domestic violence unit, says the problem is pervasive. When it comes to crimes involving domestic violence, “If a stranger were to do it, it would be total shock and awe,” he said. “But if it’s a domestic violence case, often there is not that sense of alarm.”
The state’s current sentencing guidelines reflect societal attitudes toward crimes of domestic violence, critics say. They don’t give judges the option to order a stiffer sentence to an abuser who has a long record of misdemeanor abuse.
Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna and the state’s prosecuting attorneys want to change that.
McKenna introduced legislation in the 2009 session that would increase protection for victims of the worst domestic abusers by requiring courts to consider their full criminal record, including past misdemeanor convictions, at sentencing for felony crimes.
Current state sentencing guidelines do not factor misdemeanor convictions into felony sentences except in traffic crimes.
The law would apply to about 10 percent of domestic abusers — the worst of the worst.
The legislation failed to pass in the 2009 session, in part because of concerns about the cost to the corrections system of tougher sentences for domestic abusers. McKenna intends to introduce it again in 2010.
Davis strongly supports tougher sentences for perpetrators who have long histories of domestic abuse.
“It’s very important, because it addresses the frequency and the severity of abuse and the criminal history of the offender,” he said. “We have many offenders who are serial abusers and go from one victim to another. We have a lot of people who have protective orders against three or more people.”
A long string of misdemeanor domestic violence convictions is almost always a red flag, Banfield said.
“When you see this pattern of behavior, you had better believe there is a lot of abuse going on and it is going to escalate to a deadly level a lot sooner,” she said.
v v v
Twenty-five years after the passage of Washington’s Domestic Violence Protection Act, the state’s sentencing laws do not treat domestic violence with the seriousness it deserves, says McKenna, the state’s top law enforcement official.
“Extra sentencing consideration is allowed for serial drug offenders, car thieves and other chronic criminals, but not for domestic abusers,” McKenna said.
As things stand today, the label of “domestic violence” associated with a crime like assault, kidnapping or failure to obey a protection order means nothing when it comes to punishment because it does not increase the sanction imposed, McKenna said.
Not only would his legislation allow consideration of prior misdemeanor convictions, it would also require defendants to plead to the charge of domestic violence and require prosecutors to prove it. That would allow a prosecutor to bring in a defendant’s history of domestic violence at trial and make it more likely that repeat offenders would receive tougher sentences.
Under current law, if the man wielding the broken bottle were eventually convicted of a first-time felony, he would be subject to a sentence of three to nine months, Banfield said. But if he had two prior misdemeanors involving domestic violence on his record, the new law would boost that sentence to between 13 and 17 months.
That, she said, would give the law some teeth.
v v v
Clark County has a high volume of domestic violence. In Vancouver alone, police respond to about 3,000 calls per year. Countywide, the Domestic Violence Prosecution Center filed 261 felony cases and 1,750 misdemeanor cases in 2008. The numbers were similar for 2006 and 2007.
“I really want people to understand the volume of cases and the severity,” Davis said. “They range from arson and attempted murder to simple assault. They affect the quality of life for people in their homes and at work.”
Fortunately, the county also has one of the state’s most extensive programs to arrest and prosecute perpetrators of domestic violence and to require treatment for those convicted of abuse. All that’s missing are tough sentencing laws.
“Some police agencies can only address the most egregious cases,” Davis said. “We review all domestic violence cases.”
Davis heads a police unit that also includes three Vancouver police detectives and two Department of Corrections probation officers assigned to domestic violence cases.
The city will receive a $300,000 federal stimulus grant next month to pay for training and overtime for officers assigned to domestic violence cases and victim advocates in both the public and the nonprofit sectors.
Thanks to its funding and a structure of interagency cooperation, Vancouver police can respond to more calls and even refer families to support programs when criminal prosecution is not warranted.
City police and community corrections officers work closely with the Domestic Violence Prosecution Center, a team of three city prosecutors and three county prosecutors who handle domestic violence cases exclusively.
For the team, misdemeanors are a priority.
“Everyone who comes into our unit has to do misdemeanors before they do felonies,” Banfield said. “By the time the defendant reaches felony stage, there is a long history.”
Misdemeanor cases are assigned to a Clark County District Court judge who hears domestic violence cases exclusively. The court, one of only two of its kind in Washington, routinely sentences misdemeanants to up to a year of treatment as part of their sentences.
In domestic violence court, everyone, including the judge and attorneys on both sides, becomes educated about the nature of domestic violence, Banfield said.
“You understand the crime and what is behind the crime. You understand why the women ask to have the no-contact order lifted,” usually out of fear or because the family can’t afford to maintain two households, she said.
The same is not always true in Superior Court, where felonies are tried, Banfield said.
“We have a particular judge who won’t order treatment if children aren’t in the home,” she said. That undercuts efforts to get the abuser to change his behavior. “We’ll come up with an agreement with the defense attorney, and the judge won’t order it.”
As for the effectiveness of treatment, the jury is still out, Banfield said.
“Some treatment is better than no treatment,” she said. “It’s like alcoholism. If you don’t want to change, you won’t change.”
v v v
Supporters of tougher sentences say that under current sentencing guidelines, many survivors of domestic violence feel victimized not only by their abusers but also by law enforcement, the courts and prosecutors. They see the system failing to lock up their abusers to protect them from future violence.
Debra Adams works with battered women at the YWCA’s Vancouver shelter for victims of domestic violence. She says that for many women who seek help at the shelter, bringing charges against their abuser is not the first thing on their mind.
“They’ll say, ‘I wanted the violence to stop. I don’t want to give up my home. I don’t want to lose my source of income. If the violence stops, I would be okay.’”
But if survivors of domestic violence could be sure their batterers would be held accountable, “that would be an incentive,” she said.
McKenna’s get-tough sentencing bill may face tough sledding again in 2010 as the Legislature scours the budget to find $2.6 billion in spending cuts.
Banfield says it should be a priority nonetheless.
“There are areas where we need to cut costs. This isn’t one of them. It’s a public safety issue. People will be serving longer sentences. Society will be paying more. But most people would agree these are the people we want to have incarcerated.”
Kathie Durbin: 360-735-4525 or kathie.durbin@columbian.com.
