Mar
2
Texas scored a C…
Tags: domestic minors of human trafficking, human trafficking, public policy, sex trafficking
Filed Under Human Trafficking | By Wende Hilsenrod | Leave a Comment
Shared Hope International developed a report card to rate each state’s effort in combating Domestic Minor Victims of Human Trafficking. Texas scored a C.
The report card is based on the Protected Innocence Legislative Framework, an analysis of state laws performed by the American Center for Law and Justice. The Protected Innocence Legislative Framework outlines six areas of law critical to protecting and responding to domestic minors of sex trafficking:
| Criminalization of domestic minors (4.5 out of 7.5) | Protection: limited |
| Criminal provisions for demand (21 out of 25) | Protection: moderate |
| Criminal provisions for traffickers (11.5 out of 15) | Protection: moderate |
| Criminal provisions for facilitators (6.5 out of 10) | Protection: moderate |
| Protective provisions for the child victim (16.5 out of 27.5) | Protection: limited |
| Criminal justice tools for investigations & prosecutions (12 out of 15) | Protection: moderate |
Â
Texas can and will do better. How will Texas communities collaborate with law enforcement, juvenile justice, social service providers, faith-based communities, legal services and schools to help victims? How do we prevent, train, rescue, bring justice to and restore victims? How will we prevent, train, rescue, bring justice to and restore victims?Â
To access the Protected Innocence Legislative Framework Methodology, each completed Report Card and foundational analysis and recommendations, go to their web site:
http://www.sharedhope.org/WhatWeDo/BringJustice/PolicyRecommendations.aspx
Nov
23
TSA screenings: What does it take to make us feel safer?
Tags: public policy, rights to privacy, TSA screening procedures
Filed Under News, Public Policy | By Annette Burrhus-Clay | Leave a Comment
The uproar over the current airport screening measures is being heard loud and clear. TAASA has received more inquiries on this issue than any other in recent memory. TAASA wants to be cognizant of our collective security issues as well as offer a reasoned response to the legitimate concerns and fears of travelers across our state and country.
Our concerns are four-fold:
- We are troubled by the potential for sexual assault survivors to be triggered by the imaging screening or pat down they experience.
- We are also uneasy about the general public being subjected to such invasive and unnerving procedures that have obviously made some passengers feel more violated than inconvenienced but safer. Â
- We are also worried that there may be some serious gaps in adequate training for TSA agents on how to best screen passengers who may have sensitive physical or emotional issues that need to be factored into the normal indignities of losing control and privacy over one’s own body.
- Finally, we find it distressing that TSA’s own hiring practices do not necessarily preclude a sex offender with a conviction longer than 7 years ago from hire as a screener.
Let me be clear: my intent is not to demonize the TSA screeners. They have a job to do, and I am certain the vast majority of them are doing this job to the very best of their ability. They are following a directive, and one can be pretty sure this is not the best part of their workday either. I do not believe however that this procedure is well-thought out, as the unintended consequences illustrate.Â
On the surface it seems the argument has been presented as one of collective security versus individual privacy. I would contend otherwise.  Is this screening reactive or effective?  Are these screening procedures the best methods for identifying potential terrorists? If you can refuse the imaging screening and opt for a pat down, what stops potential terrorists from simply inserting the explosive into their body cavity, like drug mules have been known to do, to avoid detection?  Will screening procedures ramp up to include full body-cavity searches if we discover terrorists using this method of transport? How far will we be willing to go?
Dogs trained to sniff out explosives are being used effectively in war zones. Why are we not using these canines at airport security lines? Have we explored all potential screening methods available to us? Were these methods chosen because they are the very best options available, or were they chosen in part because of simplicity or cost? I do not claim to have the simple answers to these very complex issues, but I do feel certain that we need to gauge the impact of these actions on the citizenry.
I implore the federal  government to find tangible ways to further minimize travelers from feeling victimized, while using all deliberate speed to implement less invasive methods of screening. There are folks trained in victim issues all across this country ready and willing to help security professionals strike this delicate balance.
Nov
9
Is Social Change Work Part of the Left-Wing Liberal Agenda?
Tags: activism, public policy, social justice
Filed Under Prevention, Public Policy | By Annette Burrhus-Clay | 2 Comments
On more than one occasion TAASA has received feedback that our social change/social justice focus is part of the “left-wing liberal agenda†and trust me when I say this was not meant as a compliment. I am generally not stung by criticism and realize it’s impossible to be all things to all people, but this somehow has an uglier edge to it. Don’t get me wrong. I have been called far worse names than “liberal†in my lifetime, but it’s the intention of the label that I find most disturbing. It’s both insulting and inaccurate for liberals and conservatives alike, as well as the majority of us who identify somewhere in the middle of this political spectrum.
As citizens we all have a responsibility to confront injustice where we see it. This is not a “liberal†issue. This is our obligation as decent human beings. This is not the work of one segment of society. We are all negatively impacted by social ills such as sexual violence, racism, poverty and the list goes on. Many social scientists, activists, educators, researchers and just plain folks with common sense and common experiences have come to the conclusion that many of these issues are linked in both simple and complex ways.Â
Wanting to change our society for the better is a value that seems to be shared by virtually all political parties in our country. Granted we may not all agree on the scope of the issues or with the remedies to our problems, but make no mistake, giving a damn is not restricted to left-wing liberals. I believe moderates and conservatives may take issue with the assumption that only liberals promote social change and work to right injustices.
It is my desire that we can all stop using labels as both a weapon and an excuse for inaction. There is too much work to be done for us to be negative or complacent for the weakest of reasons: it wasn’t my idea or you are using words that are sounding too much like the other guys. I would hope we could see where we share a common vision and truly listen and learn from one another. Labeling folks tends to shut down communication, not foster it. I for one do not intend to let others define me or the work.
 I would argue that we may be allowing a very small, self-selected group of individuals who are living on the extreme fringes decide what the real issues are and then demonize those of us who do or say anything that challenges their version of reality. I do not believe that common sense, decency,  compassion, and cooperation are dead, but they certainly seem to be on life support at times. Let’s stop working so hard to magnify our differences and being paranoid over the intentions of others and realize this work is too important to leave anyone out, silence one voice, or reject the contributions of others. Social change/social justice should indeed be part of the left-wing liberal agenda and on everyone else’s agenda as well.
Â
Sep
28
Proud to be part of this movement
Tags: crime, public policy, sex offenders
Filed Under Motivating Moments, Public Policy | By Linda Hunter | Leave a Comment
Why do I think about writing a blog mostly when something causes me to feel frustrated or sad? Or sometimes just left me puzzled, usually with questions that aren’t even answerable…in my lifetime at least?
So, I’ve been on the lookout for something I consider positive to write about.  I found it.
“Rape in the United States: The Chronic Failure to Report and Investigate Rape Cases.â€Â I know. I know. If that sounds positive to me, you don’t want to read about anything I’d consider negative. But wait. Recently the Senate Judiciary Committee held a Crime and Drugs Subcommittee hearing to “draw attention to how the crime of rape is treated in our country.â€
That’s how Susan Carbon, Director of the Office on Violence Against Women, described the hearing’s purpose. Reading her testimony gave me that first inkling I’d found something positive. She didn’t sugarcoat the failure of reporting and investigating sexual assault. Though plenty of her testimony sets off alarms, she acknowledged years of activism that “began to transform the way that sexual violence was viewed and addressed in our society.†That made me proud to be part of this work.
I’d read CNN’s Feds undercounting rape victims, advocates warn highlighting the glut of problems with using Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data.
Advocates question the rape statistics because, they note, the federal government is using a 1929 definition of the crime that excludes male victims, statutory rapes and those committed without force.
Using such an antiquated, narrow definition is a harmful disservice to countless victims, according to Carol Tracy, executive director of the Philadelphia-based Women’s Law Project.
Not much here to ring positive bells. Oh, except when Senator Arlen Spector says, “I think we can get the FBI to change its definition.” So let’s get that done!
Breaking the “let’s look for what’s wrong†habit is difficult for me. Though I agree totally with Carol Tracy’s statement that using UCR stats “is a harmful disservice to countless victims,†I’m thinking, “Yes, and it’s a don’t-even-think-about-going-to-jail card for more perpetrators than I care to imagine. Why doesn’t somebody testify about that? Why doesn’t somebody put the spotlight on perpetrators?â€
Then I read Scott Berkowitz’ testimony. Yes, he puts the spotlight on perpetrators.
The Justice Department estimates that 60% of victims never report their rape to police. And since many reports don’t lead to an arrest, and many arrests don’t lead to a conviction or prison time, the bottom line is that only one out of every 16 rapists will ever spend even a single day in jail. One.
Let me put that another way: 15 out of every 16 rapists in America will walk free. Even after all the progress we’ve made — and we have made significant strides in getting more victims to report and improving policing and prosecution — even after years of effort, 15 out of 16 rapists face no consequences for their actions. Not only do they escape any punishment for the crime they’ve just committed, they’re emboldened to commit another rape, and many more after that.
And then with a “well, duh†he adds, “Not surprisingly, rapists have figured this out.â€
Knowing that the truth is spoken aloud–by fierce advocates to people who have the power to make needed changes should they have the guts to do it–qualifies as positive, and hopeful, to me.
What do you think? What positives do you see in the anti-sexual assault movement? What makes you proud to be part of this work?
Sep
23
What does politics have to do with it?
Tags: campaign financing, public policy, Supreme Court decision, victims' issues
Filed Under Public Policy | By Rose Luna | Leave a Comment
Where do our interests lie?
The November election season is in full effect. As candidates attempt to set the tone and position themselves in the minds of voters, campaign ads are sure to hit a record high in spending and maybe a record low with mudslinging.  My concern lies with the Supreme Court decision – Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission on January 21, 2010 and its potential to change the landscape of political fodder. The decision ruled in favor of Citizens United overturning decades of law and precedence intended to limit corporate and special interest spending in upcoming campaigns.
What’s the big deal? What does this have to do with sexual assault or family violence? The answer is everything.  The power of money plus the power of the media equals INFLUENCE.  The ruling consequently allows “big money†to anonymously spend freely in future elections.
This creates two concerns. First the dubious dynamic/relationship between elected officials and the financial source that backed them is established, and secondly, unlimited anonymous campaign donations are sure to cloud the airwaves with information from both sides as well as attack ads to shift the focus away from real issues.
The relationship between money and elected officials is nothing new; however, the authority of unlimited and anonymous corporate campaign spending is NEW. The question remains…Where do the interests of victims lie? Will the lack of disposable dollars to contribute to candidates leave victims’ issues out of the equation?
As a result, it is important to actively pursue the truth and hold all candidates accountable. Do you know the positions of the candidates in your area? What are their voting records in regards to victims’ issues? We owe it to all survivors to make an informed decision.
Jan
11
Sexual Assault Examinations Without Police Involvement: A Guide to Texas’ New Law
Tags: forensics, public policy
Filed Under News | By Torie Camp | 2 Comments
KVUE’s Noelle Newton interviewed me about no-report sexual assault exams. Here is some background information about the new law.
Sexual Assault Exams Are Now Available Without Police Involvement
If a sexual assault victim is not ready to get police involved, she or he still has the option to have a sexual assault examination conducted. No police report is required.
What is a Non-Report Sexual Assault Exam?
A sexual assault examination (also called a medical forensic exam) is a procedure conducted by a medical professional to treat and diagnose a victim of sexual assault while also collecting evidence of the crime.
“Non-report sexual assault exam†refers to the same examination, except the survivor can choose to involve police much later or not at all. There is no law requiring medical facilities to report sexual assaults of adults to law enforcement, so the decision to report is entirely the survivor’s.
Why is a Sexual Assault Exam Important if the Victim Doesn’t Report?
Privacy is of paramount importance to most sexual assault survivors. Survivors often need time to prepare themselves before reporting since criminal investigations and prosecutions are often invasive and exhausting.
However, the immediate collection of forensic evidence is extremely important in sexual assault cases. It can mean the difference between a conviction and a dismissal – or even failing to identify the perpetrator at all. Evidence a perpetrator leaves behind after a sexual assault is especially vulnerable to contamination or being washed away. An immediate sexual assault exam allows for the collection of corroborating evidence to support a victim’s allegations in the criminal justice system.
Non-report sexual assault examinations balance the needs of the victim and the criminal justice system by allowing survivors to preserve important evidence to use against their attackers and still take the time they need to decide whether to report.
Victims who are unsure about reporting their attacks to authorities may seek more information about the reporting process from their local sexual assault prevention and assistance programs. These programs provide survivors with support, confidential services, and an advocate to accompany victims to the emergency room.
Is a Non-Report Sexual Assault Exam Confidential?
Yes. Any evidence collected during a non-report exam remains confidential. To protect victim privacy, the evidence is assigned a unique identifier instead of the victim’s name.
The unique identifier is then used to identify the evidence, not the victim. Only if the victim chooses to report the sexual assault at a later time is the Department of Public Safety able to link the evidence to the victim.