Tag: Ohio Domestic Violence Network

  • Bill to rid Ohio of spousal rape exception receives support in state Senate

    Bill to rid Ohio of spousal rape exception receives support in state Senate

    BY:  Ohio Capital Journal

    This story mentions rape and sexual assault. If you or someone you know needs help, the National Sexual Assault Hotline is 1-800-656-4673.

    Survivors of sexual assault perpetrated by their spouses had a simple request for the Ohio Legislature with regard to a loophole in state law that keeps their spouses from being held accountable.

    “Please help us,” Sarah Tucker said.

    Tucker said she not only endured rape from her former husband, but also a lack of action by law enforcement because of an exception for married couples within Ohio sex offense laws.

    While she was finally able to separate herself from her spouse, Tucker still has not received the justice she demands for herself and for her kids. Her journey out of the situation included mental health treatment and other assistance to deal with the “lasting effects of this trauma.”

    “Going through something like this changes a person, changes them to lose faith in the justice system, changes how they see themselves, changes how they face new relationships,” Tucker told the Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee.

    The committee heard proponent testimony recently on House Bill 161, which would eliminate spousal exceptions to rape, sexual battery, unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, gross sexual imposition and sexual imposition, according to the language of the bill.

    “The spousal exception for rape is distinct from the others because it currently applies only if the spouse lives with the offender,” according to an analysis of the bill by the Legislative Service Commission. “Under the bill, a person could be convicted of rape involving the spouse, regardless of whether the spouse lives with or apart from the offender.”

    HB 161 would also allow an individual to testify against their spouse in the prosecution of one of the crimes listed in the bill, and allows testimony “concerning a communication made by one to the other in a case involving any of those offenses, as well as public indecency,” the LSC analysis stated.

    Ohio currently stands as one of only 11 states who still holds an exception for marriage in rape and sexual assault cases, according to the bill’s sponsors.

    Those who advocate for rape and sexual assault survivors see the bill as necessary closure of loose ends that can leave law enforcement without options, and survivors with even less.

    “There can be many obstacles in the path of justice for survivors of sexual violence, but to not even have the option of justice is negligent and re-traumatizing for Ohio survivors,” said Rebecca Peckinpaugh, a licensed social worker and director for Allen County and Putnam County’s Crime Victim Services, and regional director of the Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence.

    Maria York, policy director for the Ohio Domestic Violence Network said in her 10 years as a victim advocate prior to working for ODVN, intimate partner sexual assault and spousal sex offenses were seen “repeatedly.”

    “The law enforcement, the prosecutor’s office, did a fantastic job trying to get justice for victims, but unfortunately the law isn’t there,” York told the Senate committee.

    She cited data from the National Institute of Justice, which found 40% to 45% of women in abusive relationships experience sexual assault from a partner.

    The need for a resolution is increasing in the state as well, according to Davina Cooper, director of rural services for Women Helping Women, a rape crisis center serving Adams, Brown, Butler, Clermont and Hamilton counties.

    “Intimate partner violence is a public health epidemic that impacts the lives of survivors, their children, family members and the community,” Cooper said.

    The center saw a 25% increase in “hospital response for sexual assault by a spouse” in 2023, according to Cooper. That number was the highest in WHW’s history, and necessitated an increase in staff for rural programming, she said.

    HB 161, which has bipartisan sponsors, has already passed the Ohio House, and approval from the state Senate would take the bill to the governor’s desk for signature.


    Susan Tebben
    SUSAN TEBBEN

    Susan Tebben is an award-winning journalist with a decade of experience covering Ohio news, including courts and crime, Appalachian social issues, government, education, diversity and culture. She has worked for The Newark Advocate, The Glasgow (KY) Daily Times, The Athens Messenger, and WOUB Public Media. She has also had work featured on National Public Radio.

    Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

    MORE FROM AUTHOR

  • Ohio Republicans push to waive training, permit requirements to carry concealed guns

    Ohio Republicans push to waive training, permit requirements to carry concealed guns

    BY: JAKE ZUCKERMAN and Ohio Capital Journal

    Both chambers of the Ohio General Assembly are plodding forward on legislation to waive training requirements to carry a concealed weapon.

    While current law allows state residents to openly carry a weapon, it only allows those 21-and-up to obtain a concealed carry permit after completing an 8-hour training course and passing a background check.

    House Bill 227 and Senate Bill 215, which contain some important differences, would waive these permitting requirements, including the training

    The effort, if successful, would continue Ohio’s steady relaxing of its gun laws over the last 20 years, which has included launching the concealed carry program in 2004 that required 12 hours of training; passing “pre-emption” legislation in 2006 which blocks cities from enacting gun laws stricter than those at the state level; and removing the duty to retreat (passing “stand your ground”) in 2020, which removed the requirement for a person to seek retreat before responding to a perceived attack with deadly force.

    On Thursday, the House Government Oversight Committee held its fourth hearing on the permitless concealed carry legislation.

    Over several hours, members of Moms Demand Action, an anti-gun violence advocacy group, made their case against the bill. They argued it will inevitably increase rates of gun violence. The Ohio Attorney General’s Office reports roughly 1,200 concealed carry applications are denied each year for reasons set in code, like criminal histories, civil or temporary protective orders, or others.

    What, they asked, will happen to those applicants if there’s no more licensing process?

    “It allows guns in the pockets of lowlifes,” said Sieglinde Martin, an MDA member.

    Micaela Deming, an attorney with the Ohio Domestic Violence Network, said domestic violence misdemeanor convictions and protective orders are the second highest reason that would-be gun owners fail background checks. Waiving the permitting requirements, she said, would mean the loss of a key screening mechanism to remove guns from these domestic offenders.

    Gun lobbyists and enthusiasts argued that the public safety threat is overblown. Law breaking gun possessors, they said, will continue to break laws regardless of how strict or lax they are. The bill is about enshrining Ohioans rights under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    “I don’t think there’s anything in the bill that says, ‘If you’re prohibited from carrying a [concealed] firearm, suddenly now you can’ — if you’re prohibited, you’re prohibited,” said Rep. Shane Wilkin, a cosponsor of the bill and committee chairman overseeing its hearings, in an interview.

    “Those that are going to carry that are not mindful of the law regardless of what it is, are going to carry regardless.”

    After the hearing, Wilkin said he didn’t know if the bill would be up for a vote at its next hearing but said he wouldn’t rule it out.

    Lawmakers on the committee were generally warm to the legislation. Rep. Phil Plummer, R-Butler Twp., said it’s “kind of bizarre” that it’s legal to openly carry a weapon in Ohio, but becomes illegal if you put on a jacket that covers it.

    Rep. Don Jones, R-Freeport, needled one witness who said states that legalized permitless concealed carry experienced higher levels of violent crime than those that did not. He asked whether that could be the effect of other legislation like legalizing marijuana for recreational use.

    The Senate Veterans and Public Safety Committee, meanwhile, has held two hearings on similar legislation from Sen. Terry Johnson, R-McDermott.

    A key difference from the House version: The Senate bill would also establish procedures for a pretrial immunity hearing for people facing criminal charges or a civil lawsuit related to their use of force in purported self-defense.

    The hearing, which would come before any trial, provides a substantial advantage to the accused: It would tell the court to assume the accused used force in self-defense and requires prosecutors (in a criminal case) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt or plaintiffs (in a civil lawsuit) to provide “substantial evidence” that the person did not use force in self-defense.

    If the prosecutor or plaintiff fails in this, the accused would be considered immune from the charge or lawsuit. If they succeed, the proceedings will then move toward a trial.

    Although bill proponents say otherwise, courts have generally held that licensing requirements to carry concealed weapons do not violate the Second Amendment.

    In a 2003 Ohio Supreme Court opinion (that preceded Ohio’s first concealed carry law), Justice Paul Pfeifer, writing for the majority, was blunt in a majority opinion.

    “(The law) does not unconstitutionally infringe the right to bear arms; there is no constitutional right to bear concealed weapons,” he wrote.

    In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a major opinion, now seen as a Second Amendment landmark decision, overturning a Washington D.C. law that prohibited residents from owning a firearm in their homes. However, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, an icon in conservative legal and political circles, noted in his majority opinion that the right to bear arms isn’t infinite.

    “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” he wrote.

    “(There is no constitutional) right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

    Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost is responsible by law to handle some of the administrative work in Ohio’s concealed carry program. In a statement, a spokesman said Yost has not yet taken a position on either bill and is actively monitoring them.

    “By any measure, Ohio’s concealed-carry licensing system has succeeded in combining safeguards that protect the public and provisions that uphold Americans’ right to bear arms and protect themselves,” he wrote in the 2020 annual report on the program.

    Twenty-one states allow inhabitants (residents only in North Dakota) to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, according to a count from the U.S Concealed Carry Association. This includes neighboring states of West Virginia and Kentucky.

  • Marriage shouldn’t negate rape, bill supporters say

    Marriage shouldn’t negate rape, bill supporters say

    By Susan Tebben and Ohio Capital Journal

    Supporters of a bill removing a loophole for spousal rape and sexual assault say the state needs to stop the double-standard that exists when it comes to sex crimes.

    Heather McComas-Harrison said she spoke from experience when imploring a House committee on Thursday to pass House Bill 121, to remove language in Ohio law that excepts spouses in offenses such as rape, sexual battery and gross sexual imposition.

    McComas-Harrison said it’s unfair that her husband shouldn’t be charged for sex crimes she said were perpetrated against her over many years and resulting in physical and emotional injuries, because of the mere existence of a marriage license.

    “Perfect strangers come across each other and one rapes the other, society gasps and is appalled and wants justice for the person who was raped,” McComas-Harrison told the House Criminal Justice Committee. “Yet when two people…have vowed to honor each other and the like, (they) have zero rights to justice when raped by their lifetime partner.”

    McComas-Harrison said it’s wrong of the state to allow a request for a divorce on the grounds of rape, but not give survivors rights or even the right of the spouse to receive treatment through the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections.

    Micaela Deming, policy director and staff attorney for the Ohio Domestic Violence Network, said House Bill 121 gives equal access to the law for those experiencing rape, within marriages and outside of them.

    Citing a National Institute of Justice report, Deming said 40 to 45% of women in abusive relationships are sexually assaulted by their abusive partner, with more than half of those women assaulted multiple times. Even with these statistics, Deming said married women have less legal protection from rape than unmarried women.

    “Indeed, current law serves as a disincentive for women to enter into marriage, knowing that they will lose legal protection if their spouse decides to be violent,” Deming testified to the committee.

    Louis Tobin, executive director of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, agrees that the presence of a legal document designating two people as spouses should not make the difference when it comes to sex crimes.

    “Ultimately, someone with a viable allegation of spousal sexual abuse should not be prevented from seeking and obtaining justice out of concern that some other individuals will try to abuse our criminal justice system by making false allegations,” Tobin testified to the committee.

    The law would also allow a person’s spouse to testify in the prosecution of those alleged crimes.

    Tobin was asked by state Rep. Bill Seitz, R-Cincinnati, whether, for example, a contentious divorce would be considered when looking at allegations of sexual misconduct against a spouse.

    “Down the line, somewhere in that 25-year period (the statute of limitations for rape in Ohio), they get divorced, they got fights over the kids, and the spouse says ‘well, here’s a wonderful idea, let’s run down to my friendly local prosecutor and charge this other spouse with spousal rape or gross sexual imposition,’” Seitz posed to Tobin.

    Tobin said in any legal case, an allegation still has to rise to the level of probable cause and eventually proof beyond a reasonable doubt, no matter the source of the allegation.

    “I think there’s no difference between a woman who was in a relationship 12 years ago showing up to make that allegation (and) a woman who was married 12 years ago showing up to make the allegations,” Tobin said. “Prosecutors have to sort that stuff out and just because you’ve got a marriage document, I think, doesn’t make the…rape or the sexual assault any different.”

    The bill is one of two currently circulating in the statehouse that address spousal rape, and another of several attempts to amend Ohio law on the topic.