Georgia bill to reduce prison sentences for domestic violence survivors on its way to becoming law
A Georgia bill that would reduce sentences for those who could tie their crimes to domestic abuse is on its way to becoming law.
Women nationwide are in prison for killing their abusive partners in self-defense. Others were coerced into committing crimes with their abusers. Women of color are especially likely to end up in prison for crimes tied to abuse, experts have said.
House Bill 582 passed the Senate 53-1 on Thursday after the House overwhelmingly passed it last month. Once the House approves final changes, which it is expected to, it will go to Republican Gov. Brian Kemp's desk for his signature.
Over 100 women in Georgia prisons could get shorter sentences, according to the Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Mary Favors, an incarcerated abuse survivor whose story the AP reported, hopes to work at a battered women's shelter if she gets out. She is in prison for killing her abusive husband. She says he jumped onto a knife she grabbed to defend herself.
If Kemp signs the bill, Georgia would join Oklahoma, Illinois, New York and California in giving domestic abuse victims in prison or charged with a crime the chance to ask judges for lower sentences and present evidence to prove abuse drove their crime.
The bill, sponsored by Republican Rep. Stan Gunter, would also make it easier for people going forward to prove their crime was driven by abuse and let them bring in more evidence. Current Georgia law is strict about what evidence of abuse people can present and under what circumstances they can present it.
'House Bill 582 would prevent survivors from serving long sentences for conduct needed for their own survival,' said Sen. Bo Hatchett, the Republican carrying the bill. 'House Bill 582 would allow Georgia's criminal law to catch up with society's modern understanding of domestic violence dynamics.'
Under Georgia's bill, if a judge determines that family violence, dating violence or child abuse contributed to a crime with a minimum sentence of life in prison, the judge would have to impose a sentence of 10 to 30 years in prison unless prosecutors agree to a lower sentence.
For other felonies, judges would not be able to sentence the defendant to more than half of the maximum sentence they could have otherwise gotten. People in prison could also request resentencing under the rules if the act ultimately becomes law.
Several district attorneys originally opposed the bill and contacted their representatives to oppose it when the House voted on it. But the Prosecuting Attorneys' Council took a neutral stance after they won some changes. For example, the minimum sentence a judge could impose under the original bill if they found domestic abuse contributed to a crime was one year.
Between 74% and 95% of incarcerated women nationwide have survived domestic abuse or sexual violence, according to the Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
'We only got three dissenting votes the entire time, which sends such a strong message to survivors in our state that we take their experience seriously, we value them, that their voices are heard, that they're safe, and the people care about seeing actual justice and healing,' said Ellie Williams, legal director with the Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
___
Charlotte Kramon is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Kramon on X: @charlottekramon.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Who benefits from Republicans' 'big beautiful' bill depends largely on income. Children are no exception
House reconciliation legislation, also known as the One, Big, Beautiful Bill, includes changes aimed at helping to boost family's finances. Those proposals — including $1,000 investment 'Trump Accounts' for newborns and an enhanced maximum $2,500 child tax credit — would help support eligible parents. Proposed tax cuts in the bill may also provide up to $13,300 more in take-home pay for the average family with two children, House Republicans estimate. 'What we're trying to do is help hardworking Americans who are trying to provide for their families and make ends meet,' House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said during a June 8 interview with ABC News' 'This Week.' Yet the proposed changes, which emphasize work requirements, may reduce aid for children in low-income families when it comes to certain tax credits, health coverage and food assistance. Households in the lowest decile of the income distribution would lose about $1,600 per year, or about 3.9% of their income, from 2026 through 2034, according to a June 12 letter from the Congressional Budget Office. That loss is mainly due to 'reductions in in-kind transfers,' it notes — particularly Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. 20 million children won't get full $2,500 child tax credit House Republicans have proposed increasing the maximum child tax credit to $2,500 per child, up from $2,000, a change that would go into effect starting with tax year 2025 and expire after 2028. The change would increase the number of low-income children who are locked out of the child tax credit because their parents' income is too low, according to Adam Ruben, director of advocacy organization Economic Security Project Action. The tax credit is not refundable, meaning filers can't claim it if they don't have a tax obligation. Today, there are 17 million children who either receive no credit or a partial credit because their family's income is too low, Ruben said. Under the House Republicans' plan, that would increase by 3 million children. Consequently, 20 million children would be left out of the full child tax credit because their families earn too little, he said. 'It is raising the credit for wealthier families while excluding those vulnerable families from the credit,' Ruben said. 'And that's not a pro-family policy.' A single parent with two children would have to earn at least $40,000 per year to access the full child tax credit under the Republicans' plan, he said. For families earning the minimum wage, it may be difficult to meet that threshold, according to Ruben. In contrast, an enhanced child tax credit put in place under President Joe Biden made it fully refundable, which means very low-income families were eligible for the maximum benefit, according to Elaine Maag, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. In 2021, the maximum child tax credit was $3,600 for children under six and $3,000 for children ages 6 to 17. That enhanced credit cut child poverty in half, Maag said. However, immediately following the expiration, child poverty increased, she said. The current House proposal would also make about 4.5 million children who are citizens ineligible for the child tax credit because they have at least one undocumented parent who files taxes with an individual tax identification number, Ruben said. Those children are currently eligible for the child tax credit based on 2017 tax legislation but would be excluded based on the new proposal, he said. New red tape for a low-income tax credit House Republicans also want to change the earned income tax credit, or EITC, which targets low- to middle-income individuals and families, to require precertification to qualify. When a similar requirement was tried about 20 years ago, it resulted in some eligible families not getting the benefit, Maag said. The new prospective administrative barrier may have the same result, she said. More than 2 million children's food assistance at risk House Republican lawmakers' plan includes almost $300 billion in proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, through 2034. SNAP currently helps more than 42 million people in low-income families afford groceries, according to Katie Bergh, senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Children represent roughly 40% of SNAP participants, she said. More than 7 million people may see their food assistance either substantially reduced or ended entirely due to the proposed cuts in the House reconciliation bill, estimates CBPP. Notably, that total includes more than 2 million children. 'We're talking about the deepest cut to food assistance ever, potentially, if this bill becomes law,' Bergh said. Under the House proposal, work requirements would apply to households with children for the first time, Bergh said. Parents with children over the age of 6 would be subject to those rules, which limit people to receiving food assistance for just three months in a three-year period unless they work a minimum 20 hours per week. Additionally, the House plan calls for states to fund 5% to 25% of SNAP food benefits — a departure from the 100% federal funding for those benefits for the first time in the program's history, Bergh said. States, which already pay to help administer SNAP, may face tough choices in the face of those higher costs. That may include cutting food assistance or other state benefits or even doing away with SNAP altogether, Bergh said. While the bill does not directly propose cuts to school meal programs, it does put children's eligibility for them at risk, according to Bergh. Children who are eligible for SNAP typically automatically qualify for free or reduced school meals. If a family loses SNAP benefits, their children may also miss out on those benefits, Bergh said. Health coverage losses would adversely impact families Families with children may face higher health care costs and reduced access to health care depending on how states react to federal spending cuts proposed by House Republicans, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The House Republican bill seeks to slash approximately $1 trillion in spending from Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program and Affordable Care Act marketplaces. Medicaid work requirements may make low-income individuals vulnerable to losing health coverage if they are part of the expansion group and are unable to document they meet the requirements or qualify for an exemption, according to CBPP. Parents and pregnant women, who are on the list of exemptions, could be susceptible to losing coverage without proper documentation, according to the non-partisan research and policy institute. Eligible children may face barriers to access Medicaid and CHIP coverage if the legislation blocks a rule that simplifies enrollment in those programs, according to CBPP. In addition, an estimated 4.2 million individuals may be uninsured in 2034 if enhanced premium tax credits that help individuals and families afford health insurance are not extended, according to CBO estimates. Meanwhile, those who are covered by marketplace plans would have to pay higher premiums, according to CBPP. Without the premium tax credits, a family of four with $65,000 in income would pay $2,400 more per year for marketplace coverage.
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
US Senate seeks to add expanded compensation for nuclear radiation victims to tax bill
A program to compensate people exposed to radiation from past nuclear weapons testing and manufacturing could be restarted and expanded under a provision added by U.S. senators to the major tax and budget policy bill. The language added Thursday to the Senate version of the massive tax bill would overhaul the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which was originally enacted in 1990 and expired about a year ago. The law compensated people in about a dozen western states who developed serious illnesses from nuclear testing and manufacturing stemming from World War II-era efforts to develop the atomic bomb. The new Senate provision would expand the coverage to states including Missouri and Tennessee, among other places. It would also cover a wider range of illnesses. The program's limited scope in the West has led Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri to push for its expansion to include uranium sites in St. Louis and victims in other states. His advocacy led the Senate to twice pass a major overhaul of the program, but it stalled in the U.S. House amid concerns about its cost. Without an agreement over the program's scope in Congress, the program lapsed. Hawley said the new language compensates many more people, but at a far lower cost than previous legislation. 'These folks deserve to be recognized for the sacrifices they made and compensated when the government has poisoned them without telling them, without helping them, without making it right," Hawley said Friday. 'This is a chance, finally, to make it right.' Still, the new provision's pathway remains uncertain when the House considers the Senate's changes. While there is broad Senate support for the payments, it is unclear how the addition of Hawley's legislation will be received by cost-conscious Republicans as they barrel toward a self-imposed July 4 deadline for the overall tax bill. House leaders are waiting to see what comes out of the Senate before deciding whether they might make further changes or simply try to pass the Senate bill and send it to President Donald Trump's desk. Lingering effects in Missouri St. Louis played a key role processing uranium as the United States developed a nuclear weapons program that was vital for winning World War II. But that effort exposed workers and nearby residents to radiation, with lingering issues remaining to this day. An elementary school was closed down a few years ago because of radioactive material found on site. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers remains years away from finishing environmental cleanup work. An investigation by The Associated Press, The Missouri Independent and MuckRock found the federal government and companies responsible for nuclear bomb production and atomic waste storage sites in the St. Louis area in the mid-20th century were aware of health risks, spills, improperly stored contaminants and other problems but often ignored them. Nuclear waste contaminated Coldwater Creek, and those who live nearby worry their cancers and other severe illnesses are connected. It's difficult to definitively link specific illnesses with the waste, but advocates for an expanded compensation program said there's evidence it made people sick years later. After the report by the AP and others, Hawley said sick St. Louis residents deserved help, too. He was joined by Dawn Chapman, co-founder of Just Moms STL, which brought attention to local nuclear contamination. She has called St. Louis a 'national sacrifice zone.' 'Many of us have had extreme amounts of devastation in the form of illnesses in our families,' Chapman said Friday. Expanding 'downwinder' eligibility The provision added Thursday would also expand coverage areas in several states for those exposed to radioactive contamination that blew downwind from government sites. In New Mexico, for example, advocates have sought to expand the program for people near the spot where the first Manhattan Project-era bomb was tested. These residents didn't know the blast was why ash had fallen. It poised water, crops and livestock. Attention for these 'downwinders' rose following the release of the film Oppenheimer. 'Our federal government has a moral responsibility to support Americans that helped defend our country — and it has a moral responsibility to include all people who were exposed. That begins with reauthorizing RECA and amending it to include those who have been left out for far too long,' said Sen. Martin Heinrich, Democrat of New Mexico. Prior to the addition of the radiation compensation measure, Hawley had so far withheld support for the overall tax package, questioning cuts to Medicaid programs and the potential effects on rural hospitals and low income residents. He said he still wants to see improvements in the package, but added that help for radiation victims was essential. 'It would be very hard for me to vote for a bill that doesn't include (the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act). This is extremely, extremely important to me," Hawley said. ___
NBC News
5 hours ago
- NBC News
Israel-Iran conflict splits Trump's MAGA backers
As the percussion of Israeli munitions rattled Tehran on Thursday night, President Donald Trump's MAGA movement observed a rare silence — a sign, influential Republicans say, of the divide within their own party when it comes to the prospect of a war between Israel and Iran. It took Trump, who comments publicly more often than any president in recent memory, about 10 hours to put out a statement on his Truth Social platform, in which he urged Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program. The first official U.S. assessment had been issued by the White House under Secretary of State Marco Rubio's name, and it emphasized that America was 'not involved' in the strikes. In the meantime, Charlie Kirk, the co-founder of Turning Point USA, polled his 5 million X followers on the question of whether America should 'get involved in Israel's war against Iran.' By Friday afternoon, the poll showed more than 350,000 votes, with an overwhelming proportion in the 'No' column. When Kirk read Rubio's statement on the strikes during a podcast Thursday night, Jack Posobiec, a right-wing activist popular with the MAGA audience, interjected that it was 'not a supportive statement at all.' Earlier Thursday, before the strikes, Posobiec had warned on X that a 'direct strike on Iran right now would disastrously split the Trump coalition.' And Steve Bannon, host of the 'War Room' podcast, which is influential with MAGA adherents within the administration and outside of it, steered clear of public commentary Thursday night. It all adds up to a demonstration of the quandary facing Trump as he and other elected Republicans seek safe political turf. Trump's electoral success owes in no small part to his isolationist-leaning 'America First' platform and his fierce criticism of drawn-out U.S. engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan that were launched by Republican President George W. Bush and continued by Democratic President Barack Obama. But Israel's latest action pits traditional Republican support for the Jewish state — and antipathy toward Iran — against the MAGA base's fear that the U.S. will be drawn into a new foreign war. And even within Trump's MAGA wing, there's a long-running split over American backing of Israel. Trump has always been on the pro-Israel side of the divide. 'Republicans are a pro-Israel party, and the president hasn't wavered on that,' said one longtime Trump adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity within the MAGA movement. 'I think the challenge here is not how to move forward. The question is how to sell that to the recalcitrant base.' If Trump is able to do that, it will be despite powerful voices on the other side of the debate weighing in. Tucker Carlson, one of Trump's most influential supporters, wrote in his newsletter Friday that the U.S. should "drop Israel." "If Israel wants to wage this war, it has every right to do so. It is a sovereign country, and it can do as it pleases,' Carlson wrote, according to Jewish Insider. 'But not with America's backing.' Israel launched its attack to forestall Iran's development of a nuclear weapon and perhaps pressure Tehran into giving up that goal. Trump has been trying to construct a new version of an Obama-era nuclear deal that he shredded during his first term, and he articulated his hope Friday that Israel's campaign will help serve as a catalyst for Iran to sign a new pact. But it is not at all clear that the fighting won't have the opposite effect and spark a broader war between the two Middle Eastern powers. That's a showdown that establishment Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have been itching for. 'Game on,' Graham — whose hawkish worldview predates the rise of the MAGA movement — wrote on X on Thursday night as video of explosions in Tehran bounced around the world. On the other side of the spectrum, Infowars host Owen Shroyer, one of the hundreds of people pardoned by Trump in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, posted a video to X that framed the new conflict as an existential question for the president's base. 'America, the Trump movement, MAGA — however you want to say it, there's going to be a lot of soul-searching as these events go on, because a lot of MAGA is anti-war,' Shroyer said. 'What good is 'Make America Great Again' if we can't even be isolated from this war-torn region of the world, if we can't even be isolated from these foreign countries and these foreign conflicts that are just filled with hate?' 'We'll never be able to make America great again,' he added, 'as long as we're entangled in the Middle East.' With Trump signaling approval for how Israel conducted strikes while cajoling Iran to make a deal Friday morning, some of the president's MAGA faithful seemed to settle on a narrative that U.S. involvement is acceptable to a point: troops on the ground. On a call with reporters Friday, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., asserted his own opposition to U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts while expressing confidence that Trump feels the same. 'It's one thing to support our ally, which we're doing, and we should do, unequivocally,' Hawley said. 'It's one thing to provide them with arms for their own self-defense, which we have done and should do. But I can't imagine a world in which we would send United States troops, in which we would be involved in any kinetic activity, as the defense people like to say, there in the region, unless it's just defending our own installations.' Israeli airstrikes on Iran are a far cry from American troops invading a nation that has been far more vulnerable to internal revolution than foreign conquest over the course of thousands of years of existence. Even the Republicans who are most aggressive when it comes to Iran talk about missiles and bombs rather than staging an incursion with American ground forces. But drawing a line on that is a middle ground that may satisfy most, if not all, Trump supporters for the moment. In the hours after the strikes, Trump allies hewed closely to the administration's sparse talking points. Alex Bruesewitz, a Republican consultant with close ties to the White House, shared Rubio's statement on X, emphasizing that the 'US WAS NOT INVOLVED IN STRIKES AGAINST IRAN.' Meanwhile, Laura Loomer, the right-wing conspiracy theorist aligned with Trump, posted several messages supportive of Trump and Israel. 'Iran,' Loomer wrote, 'must never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.' Mehek Cooke, an attorney and pro-Trump political commentator active in the MAGA movement, said Friday that her recent visit to Israel opened her eyes to the 'devastation of Iran's Oct. 7 proxy war' there. Israel's strikes, Cooke added, 'were not just justified; they were inevitable. This matters to every American, including the MAGA movement. You can't negotiate with regimes chanting 'Death to America.'' Cooke also pointed to recent polling from Rasmussen, a right-leaning firm, that found that 57% of respondents favored U.S. military action to combat Iran's nuclear weapons program. She said she believes MAGA loyalists will 'remain united' behind Trump. 'MAGA wants peace, but we're not blind,' Cooke added. 'Yes, some in MAGA lean isolationist. But appeasement is not an option. Iran's leaders just threatened both Israel and the U.S., bringing us to a dangerous tipping point. Trump's 60-day deadline — blatantly ignored by Iran was followed by real consequences.' Still, the political perils of taking sides in the early stages of what Israel says could be a sustained campaign were underscored by the reluctance of some MAGA figures to deal with the question head-on. Asked to explain the tension within the MAGA movement, former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., a close Trump ally, texted: 'MAGA is more concerned with the Battle for Los Angeles,' where Trump has deployed the National Guard and Marines in a standoff with Americans protesting against immigration raids, 'than the Battle for Tehran.' What the White House appears to be most concerned about, at least in terms of Trump's domestic politics, is portraying the U.S. as uninvolved in the Middle East conflict. The word that trickled out overnight from the White House, and from a phone interview Trump gave to Fox News, emphasized that U.S. military had no role in the strikes. It wasn't until Friday morning that Trump weighed in directly — and ominously. 'There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire. No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. God Bless You All!'
