On July 23, Washington will become the first state in the country to establish a system that notifies domestic abuse victims when their abuser illegally attempts to buy a gun.

The law orders the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) to establish a grant program to “create and operate a statewide system to automatically notify a registered person when a respondent subject to a court order has been denied the purchase of a firearm based on ineligibility.”

The grant program would also allow local agencies to “conduct criminal investigations of persons who illegally attempted to purchase or transfer a firearm within their jurisdictions.”

The law’s two-pronged approach is meant to close existing legal loopholes, which critics say allow potentially dangerous individuals to attempt to buy guns, lie on background checks, and get away with it.

“This will not just keep guns out of the hands of those who are not eligible to have them, but keep the public and our law enforcement officers safe,” Washington Governor Jay Inslee said when he signed the bill in May.

Tamaso Johnson, the Public Policy Director for the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence told Law Street Media that the group worked closely with legislators and other stakeholders on this bill.

“Giving survivors of domestic violence the option to be notified if an abuser attempts to illegally purchase a gun allows them to more accurately plan for their own safety and the safety of those closest to them,” Johnson said.

How the system works

When an individual who is convicted of a misdemeanor for domestic violence or subject to a restraining order for domestic abuse fails the background check required to purchase a gun, the vendor will have five days to report the incident to the WASPC.

The WASPC will then report the incident to the Washington State Patrol, which will officially record it in a database, allowing for local authorities to investigate. Meanwhile, under the bill, the WASPC will also have to send out an alert to victims and loved ones associated with the individual.

The bill states that a person needs to easily be able “to register or update his or her registration information by calling a toll-free phone number or by accessing a public website.” People who choose to be alerted can elect to receive a notification by email or by phone.

A landmark bill

This bill received a lot of support from both Democrats and Republicans as it seeks to address a wide-spread issue in Washington. According to a local investigation by KING5TV Seattle, 3,000 “lie and try” attempts occurred in 2016 and were never investigated.

“If you’re a criminal and you walk into a firearms store, you knowingly violate the law by illegally trying to purchase a firearm, you should be arrested, you should be prosecuted and in an appropriate case you should spend some time in prison,” said Democrat Drew Hansen, the primary sponsor of the bill.

The National Rifle Association isn’t necessarily opposed to the effort, although it remains wary of the potential for erroneous entries into the database, as can occur when identities are mistaken and a background check is run.

Though it is limited to the state, this bill also represents a big step toward addressing the huge problem of domestic violence in the United States. A study conducted by the Center for American Progress concluded that between 2001 and 2012, 6,410 women were “murdered in the U.S. by an intimate partner using a gun—more than the total number of U.S. troops killed in action during the entirety of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.”

Paula Harwood testified in support of the bill before it was passed. She shared the fear she felt when she learned that her abusive ex-husband had attempted to buy a gun, despite the fact that she had obtained a protection order against him. She said she only found out about the incident through a reporter who had been investigating the background check law.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Washington Will Notify Victims When Domestic Abusers Try to Buy Guns appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

An unfortunate reality of the world in which we live is that new crimes are perpetrated and new victims are created every day. There’s a firmly carved out space in our justice system–and by extension, our society–for offenders. But what about the victims of crimes? What spaces do they occupy in our justice system, and what rights do they have? Read on to learn about the pressing issues in victims’ rights, and what progress is being made to advocate for victims within our justice system.

What are victims’ rights?

The newly developing field of victims’ rights law comes from the theory that there needs to be a place for the victim in the justice system and within the victim’s own legal process. Currently there are two players in our traditional criminal justice system: the prosecutor and the defendant. However, victims’ rights advocates argue that this construction leaves little or no room for the victim of the crime, and that instead the victim is treated as another piece of evidence or as an aside. Victims’ rights advocates work to create a space for victims in the court room, or any other part of the legal process.

Much of victims’ rights theory is focused on the concept of agency: victims are independent people who should be able to play their own roles in the discussion of the crimes perpetrated against them. Often victims don’t have access to lawyers or advocates; victims’ rights law provides appropriate channels for their voices, and can involve appointing legal representation to victims.

Victims’ rights law is broad, amorphous, and serves as an umbrella for different aspects of how victims interact with the legal system. According to the Department of Justice, victims’ rights include:

1. The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
2. The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court or parole proceeding involving the crime, or of any release or escape of the accused.
3. The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding.
4. The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.
5. The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the government in the case.
6. The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
7. The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
8. The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy.

One particularly important aspect of victims’ rights law is enforcement, or the ability of victims to actually assert themselves into a criminal case. The National Crime Victim Law Institute is at the forefront of the push to train lawyers in this discipline and support crime victims in the justice system.

National Crime Victim Law Institute

The National Crime Victim Law Institute (NCVLI), an institute housed within Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon, is the foremost authority in victims’ rights law. Founded in 1997, the NCVLI “promotes balance and fairness in the justice system through crime victim centered legal advocacy, education, and resource sharing.” Among a variety of tools and initiatives, the institute trains actors in the justice system, from attorneys and judges to the victims themselves, on the scope and enforceability of victims’ rights. Additionally, the institute’s National Alliance of Victims’ Rights Attorneys provides a network of legal advocates who work for free on behalf of crime victims. The NCVLI also hosts the Crime Victim Law Conference, which is the only national conference of its kind that focuses on training and educating crime victim advocates. Watch the video below for more information on the conference.

Examples of Victims’ Rights

Right to Notice

The right to notice is a “gateway” right that needs to be afforded to victims, meaning that if a victim does not receive the right to notice, he will not be able to participate in the rest of the proceedings. The NCVLI sheds further light on this right. According to the NCVLI, the right to notice is the “right to advisement of the existence of crime victims’ rights and the right to advisement of specific events during the criminal justice process.” The right to notice can include that the victim receives notice for proceedings such as hearings, trials, or the possible release or parole of the person who perpetrated the crime against the victim. As with many of these rights, the ways to invoke the right to notice varies from state to state, and can sometimes require that a victim request notifications.

Right to Be Present

The right to be present, or the right of the victim to stay in the courtroom during the trial of the accused, used to generally be considered a given. According to the NCVLI, however, that changed in 1975 with the adoption of Federal Rule of Evidence 615 (and the adoption by many states in their rules of evidence as well), which allows for the sequestration of all witnesses, save a party representative from each side. If the victim is a witness, he will not be allowed to stay in the courtroom during the trial. While this rule prevents witnesses from having their testimony altered by what they observe in trial, it takes away the right to be present from victims. States have started to backtrack on this; many states now guarantee the right to be present, or leave it up to the states’ discretion, but there are still states where victims are excluded from proceedings.

Right to Be Heard 

The right to be heard deals specifically with victims’ ability to actively participate in the criminal proceedings of those who committed a crime against them. The right to be heard allows the victim to speak to the court at various stages, either verbally or through a written statement, although in many states how exactly this plays out is up to the court’s discretion. Points at which a victim may wish to address the court include release, plea, sentencing, and parole. In federal cases, the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) allows the victim to reasonably address the court at proceedings such as parole, release, or plea hearings.

Right to Protection

A right to protection works to ensure that the victim will not be harassed or discriminated against because of his role in the proceedings, or for his status as a victim. This includes keeping the victim updated on the status of the offender, particularly when it comes to things like parole and release status, or if the offender escapes. Victims have the right to feel safe, even if they participate in the legal proceedings against the person(s) who wronged them.

Other Rights

There are significantly more rights that should be afforded to victims–the above list is not exhaustive. Other victims’ rights issues include the rights to due process, fairness, dignity, and respect; the right to information and referral; the right to apply for victim compensation; the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; the right to confer; the right to a copy of the pre-sentence report and transcripts; and the right to standings and remedies.

Victims and Attorneys

In a court case, the defendant is guaranteed access to an attorney, though whether or not he chooses to exercise that right is up to the individual. Victims, however, do not have the same right. Prosecutors are not attorneys for the victim–they are attorneys for the state, or the “people.” They don’t necessarily have to do what is best for the victim; they are required to do their job as sanctioned by the government.

On the other hand, attorneys for victims can advise them of their legal rights, and help them act upon them. These lawyers can advocate for the victims’ rights listed above in states where those rights are not guaranteed, fight for restitution in cases where victims owe medical bills or other related costs, ensure that a victim’s records are not allowed to be exploited, as well as many other ways in which a victim may need assistance.

Challenges in Victims’ Rights Law

Victims’ rights work is currently a rather small field of work. While the recognition of the need of victims’ rights law has grown over the last several decades, there are still very few lawyers, institutions, and funding available for the practice. In addition, victims’ rights law features some unique challenges, some of which are described below.

Changing the Culture

One of the largest problems to overcome for those working in the victims’ rights field is the current culture of our justice system, and the need for balance between victims’ and defendants’ rights. There are plenty of rights afforded by our constitution and other governing legal documents and procedures that protect defendants. For example, the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments in the Bill of Rights. However, rights for victims aren’t similarly ingrained in our society; moreover, there are concerns that granting rights to victims takes away from the rights of defendants. Countering that culture and finding an appropriate balance is a struggle for those who work in the field of victims’ rights.

Funding and Time

Given that victims’ rights law is a relatively small field and requires a lot of work, those who work in the field do have a problem gaining funding. According to Meg Garvin, Executive Director & Clinical Professor of Law at the NCVLI, there are very few people who work in victims’ rights law particularly, and funding is hard to come by. As NCVLI points out on its website:

Did you know the average amicus curiae brief requires 140 hours of attorney time? Some briefs, including those to the United States Supreme Court, require much more time, and most also require payment of filing costs. The fair market value of just the attorney time on the average brief is $36,400.

Arguments Against Victims’ Rights

Those who work in victims’ rights law also have to deal with the debate over whether or not a move toward more robust and protected victims’ rights is appropriate. Critics of the field of victims’ rights law point to the logistical difficulties of including victims in proceedings, and again cite the need for witness sequestration. There is also concern over how to deal with crimes that have multiple victims, particularly if the victims all want different things or have contrasting views that may further complicate the case.

Furthermore, there are worries about the ethics of advocating for victims before the offenders are actually declared guilty. As Wendy Kaminer of the American Prospect puts it,

The practical problems posed by the victims’ rights amendment are, however, less daunting than its repressive ideology. It attacks the presumption of innocence. When we identify and legally empower a victim before conviction, we assume that a crime has been committed, although that is sometimes disputed at trial (think of an acquaintance rape case); we also assume the veracity and reliability of the self-proclaimed victim.

Conclusion

Victims’ rights law focuses on an important, seemingly often forgotten person in any case–the victim. Victims’ rights encompass almost every aspect of the justice system, from allowing victims the right to notice, to granting them an active role in proceedings. Victims’ rights law isn’t just limited to the courtroom, either, but plays a role in policy discussions and advocacy throughout our legal system. Advocating for the victim to play an active role can ensure that our justice system is as fair, effective, and representative as possible.

Resources

Primary

Office of the United States Attorneys: Crime Victims’ Rights Act

National Archives: Bill of Rights

NCVLI: Fundamentals of Victims’ Rights: A Summary of 12 Common Victims’ Rights

Office of Justice Programs: Office for the Victims of Crimes

NCVLI: Victim Law Library

Additional

American Prospect: Victims Versus Suspects

National Association of Victims’ Rights Attorneys: Pro Bono

ACLU: Factsheet on the Proposed Victims’ Rights Amendment

Lewis & Clark Law School

With robust practical skills options, flexible scheduling, and a faculty invested in your success, Lewis & Clark Law School is an ideal place to start a legal career. The school’s innovative programs, such as the NCVLI, CJRC, and the criminal law certificate program, offer students the opportunity to learn and work in a rigorous, collegial environment in scenic Portland, Oregon. Learn more at law.lclark.edu. Lewis & Clark Law School is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

https://law.lclark.edu/

The post Victims in the Justice System: What Are Their Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

A couple of weeks I wrote about Rolling Stone’s report of a young woman being brutally raped on the University of Virginia campus. Last week Rolling Stone retracted the story, even apologizing to its readers. After the original report hit the news cycle people hung on to every word–even the administrators at UVA took action by banning all fraternities–but now it seems that the story may not have been true.

In my first article I was conflicted about the story of Jackie–the victim–and wondered why she would value her reputation at the school by keeping quiet for so long over her own well-being and justice. I get that being raped by five to seven guys is a traumatic event, one that no one would ever want to relive, but why would you allow your “friends” to talk you into keeping something like that quiet, as the report indicated? Why allow seven rapists to troll the campus for another possible victim?

I believe in the theory that there are three sides to every story, and in this case those sides belong to the victim, the unnamed rapists, and the truth somewhere between the two. One person’s perspective on an event can be totally different from someone else’s, so combining both stories usually brings out a more accurate truth, in my opinion. What Rolling Stone  did was allow Jackie to tell her side of a story without sufficient due diligence on the part of the publication by contacting the men she accused and fact checking the story. Granted, I don’t know how much fact checking you can do when a young woman states she was raped two years ago. Yes, you can check to see if such a party took place at the frat house, but there isn’t much more access someone can get without starting to raise flags. Rolling Stone‘s journalism in this case was abysmal.

My biggest question is would UVA administrators have taken the time to do a thorough investigation if this were privately handled? I would like to think so, but the cynic in me knows that sometimes administrators put the reputation of a school above the well-being of its students.

I’m ashamed of Rolling Stone, not just because of this article but because of several missteps over the last couple of years. The cover where it got the facts wrong on who signed the Constitution–a staple of being an American. The RIDICULOUS decision to put a terrorist on the cover of its magazine where he looked more like a rockstar than an enemy of the state! Fact checking and respecting Americans is clearly not on the agenda over at Rolling Stone. Maybe you guys should stick with what you know–entertainment. But really, you shouldn’t even do that because those reviews are usually wrong, too.

Fellow Law Streeter Anneliese Mahoney wrote about how Rolling Stone’s retraction affects rape victims in America. I agree with her, the original Rolling Stone article and later retraction are going to make real victims of rape shy away even more from reporting their experiences. UVA administrators and investigators disproved certain facts that Jackie reported to Rolling Stone. Why couldn’t this publication have taken a little more time and done the right thing? Why did it not take a step back and try to get a full story? Look at the big picture? Yes, it was probably trying to do a good thing in telling this story. So many women feel like they were not alone and were encouraged to tell their story because somehow Jackie found the strength to do it. But now that “strength and courage” have been squashed by reality.

It’s Go Ask Alice all over again. The diary of a young girl that was in fact fictional but presented as truth. There is a certain level of betrayal from the publishers of Go Ask Alice and the people over at Rolling Stone. You want to help rape victims? Try doing your job and not ruining what victims have worked so hard for. That 5.9 percent of false accusations that Anneliese mentions are the ones that are heard the loudest and hung on to the longest. Those who cry wolf are the ones doing the most damage to real victims and Rolling Stone may have just let someone cry wolf on the main stage with a loud speaker.

I’ve shamed Rolling Stone. I’ve shamed UVA. I’ve even shamed Jackie. But now it’s time to reiterate that even though her story as published in Rolling Stone may not be true, anyone who is a victim of rape–or any crime–should find the strength in themselves to speak up. Be what Jackie was supposed to be–a role model who is taking charge of what happened to her and standing up for herself and victims alike.

Don’t let Rolling Stone take away your power.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rolling Stone, Bad Journalism, and the Future of Rape Victims appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

You might have missed it with all the huge news events within the last week, but there was a Rolling Stone article published last week about a young woman who was the victim of a heinous crime. Seven (yes, SEVEN) young men at a fraternity party raped the woman over a three-hour period. The rape took place two years ago, but now that the story is out UVA President Teresa A. Sullivan has decided to shut down all fraternities until at least January 9, 2015. There will be an investigation conducted during the suspension.

I read the Rolling Stone article and the details are mind boggling. Not just of the before and after but of the rape itself. It was horrifying. After the victim, Jackie, was raped she was able to locate her “closest” friends and tell them about the incident, which resulted in a decision I do not understand. One friend wanted to take her to the hospital immediately while the other two were more concerned about her reputation at the school. I’m sorry but those two kids were NOT your friend, Jackie. When your friends are more concerned about your reputation than your wellbeing, you need to take a good hard look at those relationship. I realize Jackie was in a horrible state but the friend who said she needed to go to the hospital should have put her foot down and taken her. According to the report her dress was drenched in blood and she needed to see a doctor.

I understand that life on a college campus can sometimes be difficult but what is more difficult–having people talk about you for a few weeks because you were raped and reported it or walking around on campus knowing that at some point you will run into your rapists, knowing what they did to you and that they are just living their lives like nothing happened?

I respect the school’s decision to shut down the fraternities and investigate but all of the evidence that was needed to prosecute these scumbags is gone. All that is left is eye witness accounts that aren’t really that reliable, especially after so much time has gone by. I worry about students on any college campus who are more focused on their reputations than justice when a crime is committed.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post University of Virginia Suspends All Fraternities After Rape Allegations appeared first on Law Street.

Right on the heels of  the Ray Rice domestic violence incident, NFL star Adrian Peterson was charged with negligent injury to a child. Known for being the best running back for the Minnesota Vikings, Peterson allegedly punished his 4-year-old son by whipping him with a tree branch, leaving cuts and bruises on the boy’s legs, backs, buttocks, hand and scrotum.

This subject is something I am really passionate about, and I was in absolute shock when Peterson gave a statement to the police following the incident claiming he felt confident in his actions, and is thankful for what spanking has done to him in his life. Each parent is responsible for choosing the way he or she disciplines his or her child, but if we start to say spanking is acceptable, how will we ever be able to set boundaries and limits? In typical NFL handling of these cases, Peterson was suspended from a game and no further action is being taken until the official police investigation is complete.

Last week I referenced the punishment for the father of a child who died as a result of being left in a hot car. That father was charged with murder. In the case of Adrian Peterson, I ask you what would happen if Peterson gave one more hit as opposed to the 10-15 lashes his poor child received, and that final hit resulted in the child’s death? Would he be let off because he didn’t intend to hurt the child? Would it be accepted like it is now, because that’s the way he grew up and spanking does “good”? I find it appalling that excuses are being made to justify what allows parents to discipline their children in this way.

Legislation is proposed all the time to stop acts of abuse toward children, and yet this incident has the potential to make parents think it’s OK to discipline their children in this way. I do not doubt that Peterson is telling the truth when he claims his intentions were harmless, but I do doubt that he feels any kind of remorse or is aware that his actions were wrong. In 2013, Peterson’s other two-year-old son was killed by his ex-girlfriend’s partner. Although Peterson had only found out about the child three months prior to his tragic death, one would have thought it would make him change his own actions.

All it takes is one hit in the wrong area, or with a certain amount of force, to cause serious harm and fall under the realm of child abuse. NFL players have the responsibility not only to be great athletes but also to be good role models. With the influx of recent incidents involving NFL players and their mistreatment of the law, I worry what effect this will have on the general public. Yes people make mistakes, yes people can change, but we should not be encouraging this behavior by making excuses. Each article I read about Rice and Peterson is drenched in excuse after excuse, each justifying the simple fact that these acts are wrong. In my opinion, if these acts of abuse were done by anyone else not in the public eye, I can guarantee the punishment would be a lot different.

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post There Is No Excuse for Child Abuse, Not Even for Adrian Peterson appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning, loves! Happy turkey week!

Thanksgiving is my all-time favorite holiday. I am a Thanksgiving super-fan. So, unsurprisingly, I’m having a super fabulous week because I’m just so EXCITED!

But the impending day of butter-soaked tryptophan isn’t the only reason I’m pumped this morning. I’m also pumped because Texas did something right.

Shocking, right? Rick Perry runs the Lone Star state. That’s never promising, especially not for women.  But! Apparently we’ve got some super-awesome Texans who are not fans of abusing and oppressing vagina-laden people.

YAY.

Here’s what happened: Over the weekend, a 19 year old woman accused 40-year-old police officer Jackie Len Neal of handcuffing and raping her while he was on duty.

According to her account of the events, Officer Neal pulled her over on the grounds that the car she was driving had been reported stolen. She produced a sales slip, proving ownership of the car, but Officer Neal wasn’t satisfied. He asked her to get out of the car so that he could pat her down.

The woman protested, asking for a female officer to perform the pat down, but Officer Neal ignored her. Instead, he groped her, put her in handcuffs, and then took her to the backseat of his patrol car and raped her. Then, he told her to keep the whole encounter a secret. Conveniently, the police car’s security cameras were not working properly.

What happened to this 19-year-old woman is terrible. This is the kind of shit I worry about when I think about getting pulled over. (Luckily, I’ve never been pulled over before—all-star driver over here.)

So, obviously, the actual rape is not why I’m pumped about Texas this morning. I’m excited because the San Antonio Police Department is handling it really well.

Cue gasps all around.

When the victim reported this crime, do you know what the SAPD did?

They ARRESTED Officer Neal.

There was no victim blaming or slut shaming. There was no ridiculing. There was no sweeping this incident under the rug.

Nope. Instead, Police Chief William McManus went on record to praise the victim for coming forward, to urge other victims to do the same, and to denounce Officer Neal’s awful behavior.

“There is no such thing as consensual sex on duty,” said McManus. “I feel silly even saying that we won’t tolerate it. Of course we won’t tolerate it. There is no gray area. This is a criminal offense.”

TEXAS FOR THE WIN!

Loves, here’s why this whole case is so exciting. Texas is a blood-red state, run by a far Right, uber-religious, Tea Party governor, who’s famous for enacting draconian legislation that screws everyone who’s not rich, white, straight, and male.

But actually.

This is the same state that, in 2011, tried to rewrite K-12 history textbooks to refer to slavery as the “Atlantic triangular trade,” demonize Social Security, valorize witch hunter Sen. Joseph McCarthy, and omit Pres. Thomas Jefferson and Pres. Obama from the record entirely.

Just a few days ago, the Guardian reported that the Texas Board of Education was trying to amend biology books to teach creationism and deny climate change. They’ve also, apparently, started referring to slaves as “unpaid interns” who were compensated not with money, but with “valuable career experience…and ample networking opportunities.”

Not to mention, just last week, Texas got the go ahead to start enforcing a law that would seriously restrict women’s access to safe abortions in the state. Its passage has caused abortion clinics to close left and right, and will deny 20,000 women access to abortion altogether, with many more facing delays and increased risks.

All things considered, Texas has a bad reputation when it comes to women. Really, really bad. That’s certainly not to say that all Texans are woman haters, or that Texas itself is an awful place to be.

But it is to say that, when it comes to the Texans who make the rules, they overwhelmingly support legislation that’s radically Right-wing and anti-feminist.

So this week, when a 19 year old woman accused a police officer of raping her, I had low expectations.

I assumed the police department would laugh in her face. They’d protect their own. They’d sweep the whole thing under the rug, telling her she must have wanted it, she must have enjoyed it, she doesn’t have any proof anyway, she shouldn’t have been driving alone.

Similar things have happened in states with less conservative reputations. Hell, it’s happened in the bluest of blue states. It happens fucking everywhere. This is why rape is so under reported.

But then, I got a pleasant surprise. The SAPD didn’t do any of those things.

Instead, they held the rapist responsible, while treating the victim (publicly, at least) with compassion and respect.

This is how rape cases should be handled.

So, you see, this isn’t just an awesome week for turkey. It’s also an awesome week for women, for rape victims, and (weirdly), for Texas.

Congratulatory back slaps all around! Let’s keep this up, law enforcement, mmkay?

—

Featured image courtesy of [Jack via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Handles Rape Case Without Slut Shaming, Cue Applause appeared first on Law Street.