Violence bill might get a 2nd chance

By Josh Loftin
Deseret Morning News
Published: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 11:49 p.m. MDT
E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
A change in state law that would allow victims of dating violence to seek a protective order could be primed for a second run at approval.

Last year, the bill failed to pass the House because of concerns about the enforcement of protective orders for teenagers, especially minors. There were also questions about court jurisdiction and jail time for minors raised by law enforcement officials, since an order could be issued against anyone 16 years and older.

Despite that failure last year, Rep. David Litvack, D-Salt Lake, brought the bill before the Judiciary Interim Committee Wednesday with some changes, primarily by removing the criminal elements from the bill. Instead, the protective orders would be a civil case, although violations of the order would be a misdemeanor on the first offense and a third-degree felony for any subsequent violations.

Dating violence is essentially domestic violence, except that the victim is not married to or living with the abuser. A protective order can also be issued if the couple has children or is expecting a child together.

The orders are especially important for high school and college-age victims, Litvack said, since dating violence is most common for those age groups. The protective orders would also complement other educational programs that are being more widely used to prevent dating violence.

Story continues below
"This has a strong community education component," he said. "We recognize what we are trying to do here is after there has been violence. But there is a strong community effort to educate at the high school and college level . . . that dating violence is domestic violence."

Rep. Scott Wyatt, R-Logan, said that he would like to see the dating violence orders permitted because under current law the orders are generally only issued after the relationship has become sexual. A former county prosecutor, he said the hardest thing was to have to tell a girl that because she had not had sex with the abuser, she could not get legal protections. "Those girls who do what we want them to do — by not living with somebody or sleeping with them until they make a permanent decision — we punish them by not offering them protection," he said. "The question should be if they have a relationship, not if they are sleeping with the person or living with them."

The committee will discuss the bill again at future meetings and decide whether to support it as an interim committee bill.

E-mail: jloftin@desnews.com

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.