Raise penalties for domestic violence
Spurred by a recent spate of mass shootings, California lawmakers are gearing up to debate a host of bills that aim to reduce gun violence by strengthening the state’s strongest-in-the-nation firearm laws.
But the supermajority-Democratic Legislature should also seriously consider a proposal, authored by Republican Assembly Member Joe Patterson of Rocklin (Placer County), that approaches the problem from a different, oftoverlooked angle: classifying domestic violence as a “violent” crime, increasing penalties for the worst and most dangerous offenders.
You and I might define domestic violence as “violent” — it’s in the name, after all — but California penal code does not. (Other notable exceptions: human trafficking — which Patterson’s bill would also classify as violent — and rape of an unconscious or incapacitated person.)
So what, you may ask, does domestic violence have to do with mass murder?
As it turns out, quite a bit: In more than 68% of U.S. mass shootings — events in which at least four people died, not including the perpetrator — from 2014 through 2019, the shooter either had a history of domestic violence or killed at least one partner or family member, according to 2021 research published in “Injury Epidemiology” . Domestic violence was cited as a possible motive for the Monterey Park gunman, who fatally shot 11 people on Lunar New Year’s Eve at a dance hall before killing himself.
Statistics that serious call for an equally strong response from the state.
The state Legislature is understandably squeamish about increasing criminal penalties, given the state’s history of mass incarceration and its disproportionate impact on communities of color. But, by failing to treat domestic violence as the violent crime that it is, California is failing not only victims — who sought assistance from law enforcement nearly 165,000 times in 2021 — but also society at large by insufficiently addressing one of the greatest predictors of mass shootings.
Because of how California’s penal code is written, people convicted of felony domestic violence are considered “nonviolent” offenders and are eligible for benefits that “violent” offenders are not. Under rule changes recently adopted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation — using the power voters granted with the 2016 passage of Proposition 57 — nonviolent offenders can receive enough good conduct credits to slash their sentence by 50%, compared to 33% for violent offenders. Both groups can also earn additional credits by participating in educational and rehabilitative programs.
Certain nonviolent offenders are also eligible for a special parole review process that can result in an expedited release from prison. And unlike violent felonies, nonviolent felonies are not considered strikes under California’s three strikes law, limiting prosecutors’ ability to seek longer sentences for offenders convicted of future crimes.
If domestic violence were considered a violent crime, it would result in steeper consequences for the worst offenders — those convicted of a felony as opposed to a misdemeanor, which has a maximum sentence of one year in jail. This could help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, given that California often fails to enforce laws banning most domestic abusers from possessing firearms — permanently for those who are criminally convicted and temporarily for those served restraining orders.
Among the challenges, according to a 2021 report from the Little Hoover Commission, an independent state watchdog: The California Department of Justice’s database of so-called “armed and prohibited” people runs on complex, outdated technology and contains incomplete information. The report further notes that there aren’t enough law enforcement officers at any level of government to remove guns from dangerous individuals.
As of Jan. 1, 2022, the state Justice Department’s database contained nearly 25,000 people who owned or possessed guns despite being prohibited from doing so. And those are just the people and weapons the state knows about: Of the 1,428 guns the department’s Bureau of Firearms recovered in 2021, more than 40% were not listed in the database.
Some doubt that lengthier prison sentences are the best way to mitigate gun violence. Given that most domestic violence cases are handled in civil, not criminal, court, the state should focus on removing guns from people served domestic violence restraining orders, said Julia Weber, a national expert on domestic violence and firearms policy.
Another concern for advocates: “Does a more intense carceral response really provide healing and behavior change?” asked Krista Colón, public policy director for the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence. “That’s something that we have a healthy dose of skepticism about, that lengthier prison sentences are going to prevent these individuals from committing future violence.”
But the issue of prison reform — which is also much needed — is separate from the fundamental issue of how state law treats a crime that affects more than 1 in 3 women nationally and killed at least 87 Californians in 2020, the vast majority of them women. As Greg Totten, CEO of the California District Attorneys Association, put it, domestic violence is “by its nature, by its very definition, a violent crime.”
It is difficult to understand how a state that describes itself as a fierce defender of women’s rights could argue otherwise.
One of California’s highest-profile Democrats, Attorney General Rob Bonta, told me before his re-election last year, “Domestic violence, human trafficking, rape of an unconscious person — all of those should be discussed and potentially changed. … If people are asked … ‘Is this a violent crime? Or is it not a violent crime?’ I think people will say, ‘It’s a violent crime.’ ”
It’s time the state penal code says so, too.