While next year’s Legislature is facing many daunting issues — school funding, the mental-health system, and wildfires among them — one necessary fix should be easily achieved.
In Washington, court-ordered protection for sexual assault victims is good for two years. That is too short, and it should be addressed by lawmakers quickly in the coming session.
Sexual assault protection orders provide victims with a reasonable alternative to filing rape charges against an accused assailant. Many victims who have been assaulted as part of a domestic relationship prefer not to go through court proceedings and prefer not to see the accused targeted with the threat of imprisonment. Many actions that lead to a protection order would be considered rape if they were taken to the criminal justice system, but victims often are loathe to pursue such action. Such an order means that assailants do not have to register as a sex offender; they still may obtain and own a firearm; and they avoid incarceration and a damaging record. They simply cannot contact the victim.
A protection order may be issued by a judge based upon information provided on a written form. If the alleged assailant challenges the accusation, a mini-trial is held before a court with the parties represented by lawyers. Being a civil action, the legal standard is a preponderance of the evidence, which is more easily reached than the criminal-court standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But, as it stands now, victims might have to face their assailant again after two years.
The issue is prevalent. According to the 2011 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, more than 1 in 3 women experience rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetime. And according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, an average of three women nationwide each day are killed by a current or former intimate partner.
Last year, House Resolution 2033 was introduced in the Washington Legislature to allow judges to extend the initial protection order to five years. The bill passed the House by a vote of 67-29 (Clark County representatives Jim Moeller and Sharon Wylie voted in favor; Paul Harris, Liz Pike, Lynda Wilson, and Brandon Vick voted against) but never made it to the Senate floor. The (Spokane) Spokesman-Review has reported: “In part, that was the fault of the groups that support the bill. They had not expected the representatives to act so quickly, and so did not have a senator committed to sponsoring the bill in that chamber. … Supporters say they have a tentative commitment from a potential sponsor and expect to renew their push for the bill’s passage next month.”
In addition to providing some middle ground short of filing rape charges and going through a lengthy trial, protection orders are particularly helpful for victims who face economic barriers. The National Network to End Domestic Violence reports: “Women and men who experienced food insecurity or housing insecurity in a 12-month period had a significantly higher prevalence of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in that same time period, as compared to women and men who did not experience food insecurity or housing insecurity.”
With a two-year timetable, protection orders under Washington law do not provide enough protection for victims of domestic assault. The Legislature should revisit HB 2033 next year in an effort to better protect vulnerable citizens.
