The Criminal Justice Committee heard several bills on Friday relating to domestic and sexual violence. HB1651, HB1740, and HB1633 caught my attention [hearing video shared below].
First up was HB1651, introduced by Rep. Jennifer Rhodes. It was heavily supported by the NHCADSV, which had multiple lobbyists there on its payroll. They also had a three-person security team in addition to the guards and police already on duty and in situ for the hearings.
As one person commented, the cost in salaries of the NHCADSV and security detail entourage (paid for by your tax dollars) could have bought a “sh*t ton of rape kits”. Which is worth thinking about when you get to HB1633, which concerns survivors’ rights to get these kits, which the NHCADSV has been resisting.
So why would the NHCADSV put up roadblocks and concerns about Rep Ellen Read’s bill HB1633, expanding the rights of a claimant of sexual assault to get a rape kit?
The SANE nurse program head for the NHCADSV, Janet Carroll, explained that the survivor’s bill of rights is inside the rape kits provided by the state.
But Rep. Daniel Popovici-Muller pointed out the obvious problem – drum roll- that if a survivor has a bill of rights but is refused a rape kit, then they wouldn’t know about these rights because they are locked inside the boxes that carry the kits. It is clearly very subjective when it comes to who the State, its NGOs, and police think is worthy of a survivor’s bill of rights and who is not.
As has been documented, teens have been forced to have rape kits despite believing they don’t need them, while adults who have requested them have been denied.
There are 200-300 rape kits processed per year. That’s one rape kit for every 4,667 people in a state of 1.4 million. Somehow, the numbers don’t quite jibe with the NHCADSV’s ads that one in three teens is likely to be a victim of intimate partner violence, or their statistics that they serve between 12,000 and 15,000 people per year at their crisis centers.
I’d really like to see some explanations of these numbers for the laypeople. If one in three teens is a victim of intimate partner violence, then what is the calculation for perpetrators among teenagers? And what parent would feel comfortable sending their child to school with a statistic as high as 1 in 3 that they’d become a victim of IPV?
Another astonishing part of the testimony came from a prosecutor named Meghan, who I believe said she used to work or volunteer at Central Crisis Center NH. Despite a bill passing in 2020 to outlaw over-the-counter rape kits, she admitted that she only became aware of that law during Friday’s hearing for HB1633.
What have all these training sessions, commissions on DV and SA, multidisciplinary response guidelines, and courses been teaching prosecutors for sexual assault if not the bare basics of current state laws regarding rape kits? The NHCADSV were the lobbyists to ban over-the-counter rape kits. It’s nonsensical, coming from an NGO that also maintains how hard it is (agreed) for survivors to come forward. Why not make it as easy, in the first instance, as getting an over-the-counter pregnancy test?
We also learned that the prosecutors don’t always like the rape kits if they don’t serve the purpose to support the prosecution. Is that an admission that prosecutors will ignore rape kits that don’t support their agenda? If so, that’s an admission that they’re open to engaging in Brady violations. The defense has the right to be given all exculpatory evidence, but apparently, they don’t necessarily have access to the rape kits. They have to file a motion to get access.
The most absurd part of the day was when attorney Steven Endres (erstwhile assistant DA for Merrimack County) testified against Rep. Matt Sabourin de Choiniere’s HB1740 to repeal RSA 173 B and replace it with new language that would restore due process in DV and SA cases.
Steven Endres Esq. argued that there is a “sliding scale” for due process when asked about concerns for defendants’ rights.
He maintained that death penalty cases had more due process than cases that would just lead to incarceration, or that the removal of a driver’s license required less due process.
It was an alarming argument coming from an attorney who served in the prosecutor’s office for Merrimack County.
Due process is not on a sliding scale.
Due process is required to determine whether a crime occurred, what the crime is, whether there was intent to commit the crime, and who the perpetrator is. It’s also required to determine that the claimant is actually a victim.
Once due process determines all of this, then the jury verdict follows (or should) the judge’s instructions to assess the testimony and evidence presented against the charges under the statutes cited.
The sentencing should follow the RSAs’ sentencing guidelines for the crimes. These are assessed in conjunction with victim input, prosecutor recommendations, defense attorney requests, defendant’s sentencing memo letters, and victim impact statements. The sentencing is geared more towards preponderance of the evidence in these cases – is the defendant a repeat offender, a danger to society, etc. But it is due process that takes place – or, rather, should – before this.
It is beyond concerning that Steven Endres thinks due process is on a sliding scale.
What became very apparent with the testimony supporting HB1651, against HB1740, and against HB1633 was this:
The NHCADSV and its cohorts from law enforcement and the AG’s office are all over the place on their arguments. They had Manchester PD supporting them.
Please, can we all remember that Manchester PD couldn’t get their story straight on Harmony Montgomery? Was she the collateral damage of this practice of a sliding scale of due process? The two police officers from Manchester spoke strongly in favor of HB1651 – to make the case for civil restraining orders in DV and SA cases. They are law enforcement officers who investigate crimes. They are not supposed to be lackeys for civil claims.
How do you spend $11 million per year as an NGO intertwined with police, prosecutors, and DCYF and have such a mess of nonsensical arguments?
