Opinion: Conklin bill doesn’t make a dent in fight against domestic violence
Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.” State Rep. Scott Conklin and his constituents didn’t consider the impact of this resolution before presenting House Bill 2596. Their proposal, while seemingly trying to help victims, focuses on a slim percentage, not making a dent in the fight against domestic violence.
Over 37% of Pennsylvania women and 30% of Pennsylvania men experience physical/sexual violence or stalking in their lifetimes. Out of those only half are reported, and more importantly, 60% of all cases will be dismissed. How many will actually want to run for public office? That is the percentage the Conklin bill is fighting for while completely ignoring the others. Simultaneously, it disproportionately affects poor and disenfranchised communities.
A successful outcome requires victims to disclose their abuse, go through a trial process and the abuser must be sentenced. If their abuser wishes to run for office, they may obtain another level of “justice.” A family household member is a spouse, child, parent and sibling. If two sisters get into a fist fight, should neither be eligible for public office in the future? The mother going through postpartum depression while raising a child alone? The soldier who has come back after the war with PTSD, who didn’t know he couldn’t be approached from behind? All of these are examples of one-time DV acts, and deserve appropriate punishment — but do they warrant a lifetime barring from public office?
HB 2596 mentions pardons and expunges, while overlooking a person who has paid their debt to society shouldn’t need a pardon. Studies show Black and Hispanic communities are primarily affected by DV. The fact is, the office aims to punish a targeted, elite group. In doing so, will inevitably affect a large percentage of Black and brown populations who aren’t as well-off as the men in power they are currently after, and the least likely to be pardoned.
The ignored truth — there is no fail-safe, in this bill for those falsely accused of domestic violence or sexual assault. How many Black men have had careers ruined, only for claims to be proven false? Emmett Till’s tragic story is a prime example of why this bill is so problematic. In this scenario, Emmett wouldn’t be eligible even if he’d served time for a crime that never happened. Sadly, it’s not just the Black community — we watched as Amber Heard falsified abuse claims on Johnny Depp. Fortunately, he had the financial stability and resources to have an entire legal team, a privilege most Black people are not afforded.
Ferguson Township supervisors voted against supporting the bill 5-0. A representative from Conklin’s office told me “it would pass because we were all women’” — sexist and misogynistic to say the least. Afterward Conklin went to Twitter, stating those against HB 2596 have no “moral compass” and don’t “stand with survivors.” I confronted his office and was met with agitation. I was told, “This is not a domestic violence bill.” I replied, “Then you can’t say I’m against the victims of domestic violence.”
His opening language — “embezzlers, etc.” — makes it clear. To him, individuals shall be judged on their worst moment indefinitely — “once a thief, always a thief.” I believe in restorative justice, redemption and second chances. If after serving time in prison, one chooses to run for office, we should not add additional barriers, or take decisions out of the hands of the voters. Perhaps if Scott had BIPOC on his team, he would’ve had more diverse perspectives.
Bryan Stevenson says, “We have a choice. We can embrace our humanness, which means embracing our broken natures and the compassion that remains our best hope for healing. Or we can deny our brokenness, and, as a result, deny our own humanity.” Stand with all victims of domestic violence. Don’t support HB 2596.