³ÉÈËXÕ¾

Should rape and sexual assault victims have the same rights as victims of domestic violence and stalking?

Right now, a victim of sexual assault or rape has to return to court every two years to renew a protection order against her attacker.

Reporting in Olympia: Veteran Olympia observer reflects on 45 years

Cali Knox still shudders at the notion of the first time she had to face her long-time abuser in court. The 19-year-old had been victimized by her weekly babysitter for more than a year.

And she recently told he threatened to hurt her and her family if she ever told.

“It brought back a lot of memories. It was just really difficult. I didn’t want to see him,” Knox said.

And under current law, every two years she has to see him again in court if she wants a judge to renew a sexual assault protection order against the man.

“It’s just something I don’t want to have to be reminded of over and over. And it’s something I just wish I could move beyond but it just keeps following me,” she said.

Mary Ellen Stone is the executive director of the King County Sexual Assault Resource Center.

She says the current rules are just plain wrong.

“It does put the onus of all of this on the victim to say ‘if you want this protection, you have to go through all of these hoops’,” Stone said.

But there are renewed hopes that won’t always be the case.

The Legislature is considering a that would change the rules, so the length of a protection order would be set by a judge based on perceived threat to the victim — such as whether they live or work nearby.

The same rule already applies to victims of domestic violence and stalking.

“Victims shouldn’t have to go back every year to get the protection. It is at best discouraging. It is a significant barrier and it deprives people of the basic protection that under the law we feel they should get,” Stone said.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers agree. The proposal has earned widespread support, not just in this session but in previous years as well.

But there’s one big stumbling block: The National Rifle Association.

The gun rights group vehemently opposed the measure last year and is doing so again.

The NRA argues the measure would allow judges to automatically and permanently take away an accused abuser’s guns even without a criminal conviction.

The group and its backers have been bombarding lawmakers with email and calls in opposition.

But Stone says it’s pure fiction. And the new measure doesn’t change any gun laws.
A judge now can temporarily take away an accused attacker’s gun until they prove why they should get it back.

What we’re saying is we want a judge to be able to decide how long the protection order should be in place. At any point, right now, a gun owner can go in and say I want to have that (protection order) looked at, I want to have that modified, I want to have that weapon restored,” Stone said.

A House judiciary committee working group will take up the measure Thursday, and Stone hopes it will make it to the full House for a vote soon. If it passes, the bill then goes to the GOP-controlled Senate, where it faces a far more uncertain fate.