Oklahoma’s Domestic Abuse Problem

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Now, to the U.S. State of Oklahoma, where new legislation is being worked out to protect women who kill their abusers in self-defense. There are currently hundreds of women in jail on murder charges because of their history of trauma and abuse, which wasn’t taken into account when they were sentenced. Republican State Representative, Toni Hasenbeck, tells Michel Martin how she hopes to change that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Representative Toni Hasenbeck, thank you so much for talking with us.

REP. TONI HASENBECK (R-OK): Thank you for having me.

MARTIN: In February, you introduce Oklahoma’s Domestic Abuse Survivorship Act, and that would help domestic violence survivors who have fought back against the person abusing them. Why does Oklahoma need this, in your opinion?

HASENBECK: Well, Oklahoma is the second highest place for a woman to be killed by a man in the United States of America. And as — you have probably covered some our gun laws, you’ve probably covered some of the things that we do in the legislature, there isn’t a dad alive who things it would be OK for his daughter not to fight back in her own home against anyone.

MARTIN: As I understand it, from the State Department of Health, 40 percent of women and 38 percent of men said that they have experienced intimate partner physical violence. First of all, let me just ask, why do you think that is?

HASENBECK: Well, I think it’s one of those realities of years of — a lack of knowledge and a lack of recognition of mental health problems.

MARTIN: I feel like, sadly, you know, mental health challenges exist all over the world, but every place doesn’t seem to have the same problem that you’re experiencing in Oklahoma. When something stands out like that, it’s such an outlier, you have to ask yourself, what’s going on?

HASENBECK: Well, I think domestic violence is one of those realities that crosses every socioeconomic boundary that we have. And so, right now, we’re second in the nation. I’m sure whoever is 14th of who is first or who is 50th, they feel like there’s too much domestic violence going on in their state. And so, sometimes when you’re in the middle of America, we are slower to look at these issues and take them up then on different coasts.

MARTIN: How did you get started on this project to begin with?

HASENBECK: I started being interested in this topic when I found out that strangulation of your domestic partner was not a violent crime. So, that just really blew my mind. And so, then, I started requesting that the legal staffs and me, different statute to look at and kind of understand more about what’s going on. And so, for five years, I’ve kind of been snipping around the edges, trying to understand what current statute says and what types of things are going on. And so, it’s just one of those things that I’ve been thinking about for a long time.

MARTIN: So, what would your bill do? What specifically what it do? And what hole in the law that you see would it fill?

HASENBECK: Basically, in Oklahoma, and it’s like this in other states as well, domestic violence or the surviving domestic violence is not really looked at before sentencing occurs. And so, a person who has to fight back against their domestic partner inside their home gets all the way through the sentencing stage and at that point, they receive an exorbitant sentence. And then, typically women get a more exorbitant sentence than do men. And we’re going to allow for that to be declared at the beginning.

MARTIN: When I first learned of your bill, I was so taken aback because, I think, it is known, it’s understood, you know, that some states have very strong so-called stand-your-ground laws. OK.

HASENBECK: Right.

MARTIN: And, you know, those are controversial. You know, everybody doesn’t think that that’s the best —

HASENBECK: They are controversial.

MARTIN: — public policy, but that is policy in Oklahoma. So, why isn’t that stand-your-ground is a defense in other cases, but it doesn’t seem to be a defense for people who are defending themselves in an intimate partner situation, especially when it comes to women, why is that?

HASENBECK: You are correct. My first term in Oklahoma legislature was five years ago, and we were on the house floor and it was late at night, and a Democrat brought up the bill that made it so, in the State of Oklahoma, that if you strangled your domestic partner that would be considered a violent crime. Up to then, strangling your domestic partner was not a violent crime. And typically, when you don’t go back and codify some of these crimes, then law enforcement looks at them as just this is husband and wife stuff and we’re not going to get involved in that. And so, we’ve got a lot of work to do. When you strangle your wife within an inch of her life or your husband or any other domestic partner, and you don’t get in trouble for it, you’re going to do it again to get your way. And so, we change strangulation. We’ve got a lot more work to do. This bill is just really designed to stop some of these exorbitant sentences because a domestic violent survivor had a very good reason. Typically, the women that are incarcerated for committing these crimes inside their home, this is the only crime they’ve ever been convicted of. They have been law-abiding citizens who had to fight for themselves or their children inside their home. And women look different in a fight.

MARTIN: You know, actually, you commissioned a study on this last fall.

HASENBECK: We did.

MARTIN: And — in which you heard from survivors who would be protected by this legislation. And part of your study said that, you know, something upwards of 65 percent of incarcerated women in Oklahoma were in abusive relationships at the time of their arrest, and you also said that, you know, Oklahoma incarcerates women at rates, you know, far above the rest of the country. So, again, I’m just sort of puzzled by this. Like when you surface this issue and you started talking about it, like what did some of your colleagues say? Do they say, oh, wow, that’s too bad, or like how did they respond?

HASENBECK: No. No. My colleagues responded with, hey, I would like to be a co-sponsor on this bill and we need to get this managed. That is how my colleagues have responded to it. And we get into look at the system a little bit. I mean, to be honest, before I published this language I had district attorneys in my office, because they don’t want to have look backs. They don’t want to look back on these cases. And I think the prevailing thought of the citizenry that I have spoken to about this issue, if you are surviving inside your home every day and you finally got to a position where you could equalize yourself against your abuser and you did, that deserves a look back. And so, we’ve got some work to do, changing the hearts and minds of our 47 district attorneys across the state that don’t really feel like we need to look back on these issues.

MARTIN: You are saying that your colleagues on — in the political realm, and just like your constituents, they see the logic is there —

HASENBECK: Yes.

MARTIN: — but you are saying district attorneys have been opposing it. Is it because they don’t want the law to be retroactive? Is that the issue? They don’t want to have to go back and revisit these cases?

HASENBECK: Right. The retroactivity portion of this bill is going to require some of these cases to be looked at with a fresh set of eyes. And we’re going to have to say, well, domestic violence is a compelling reason to fight for your life.

MARTIN: And so, why do they think it’s not appropriate? Is it because — to take a look back if an injustice was done, is it because they just think the workload would be too great or what arguments have they given you?

HASENBECK: Oh, Michel. I’ve had a lot of arguments. One is the workload. One is, you know, women lie. I’ve had that told to me. I’ve been approached with, you know, women stay, women go back. I have had some people that say, yes, we don’t want to make the law so that one of these manipulative abusers can use it for themselves. This is a men versus women issue. It really is in a lot of cases. And my argument is that I think men have been manipulating the law in this country for a long, long time. And so, if we can equalize it for anyone who is suffering from this situation, I think it’s something we need to do.

MARTIN: Tell me about one of the cases that you’ve described in the study that you commission that really stood out to you, a woman named April Wilkins. And it’s — I’m just going to say on its face, it’s disturbing for people who are listening to our conversations. So, I just need to assert that.

HASENBECK: It is disturbing. April is a beautiful, smart, well-educated woman who found herself in a position where she was being controlled and raped and beaten. And she finally got to the point, she had enough, and she fought back. And she saved her own life. And when I read — I listened to some podcasts and I read her story, and I just — I realized, wow, this can happen to anybody. Because she was beautiful and by all measures, seemed intelligent and affluent. She just celebrated her 53rd birthday.

MARTIN: And this is — again, I’m going to let people know, this is going to be uncomfortable to hear. It’s my understanding that she was dragged to the basement, handcuffed and physically assaulted. And that she was able to get her abuser’s firearm away from him and killed him. But even though she was handcuffed at the time, she was still given a life sentence for this, which she continues to serve. I understand that there’s another case, there was a woman who was pregnant, who was stabbed in her pregnant stomach by a man who had abused her previously. She did everything she’d been advised to do. She moved away. She changed her phone number. She made sure she blocked him on social media. But at some point, he tracked her down. He assaulted her while pregnant. She was able to get the knife away from him and defend herself, and she also was given a life sentence. Again, I’m just wondering why it is that — is the way that stand-your- ground is interpreted in Oklahoma is only interpreted when the individual is a stranger? Because as I understand it, there’s not even a duty to retreat in Oklahoma. Am I right about that?

HASENBECK: That’s correct.

MARTIN: So, here’s where I have to just really ask you very bluntly, is this because the sort of — the forces that created these laws just don’t believe women?

HASENBECK: I think that was the case for a long time in the State of Oklahoma. And I think about 20 years ago, we had a female legislature who put in place some domestic violence laws. We do have some. We need to make them work for the people that are the most vulnerable in this situation. And I think that’s one of the things that you ask me why is Oklahoma number two in these numbers, it’s because our statute is really not caught up to what is going on. And so, sometimes, that takes time. It took New York State five years to get this legislation passed. I grew up on a farm in Oklahoma, and our citizenry, we still believe in capital punishment. The majority of our people believe if you harm a woman or you harm a child in any way, it doesn’t matter who you are or what you look like, you probably need to be punished by death for that. One of the reasons why I got super involved in this bill is there is a man in Texas whose five-year-old child had gotten raped by a man that lived down the road. This father went down the road, jerk this man out of his house and beat him to death in the front yard. And in Oklahoma, there are a lot of people that feel like that is 100 percent justified. And there is a case in Oklahoma of a woman who shot her rapist, and she is sitting in jail. And so, we — I — we try to pretend like this is for everybody. For me, I am trying to fight for 97-pound woman who is in her home at 3:00 in the morning, trying to fight against a 220-pound man who she’s no chance of equalizing with. And I’m trying to make it better for that situation, and I think if we do that, we’ll make it better for a lot of other people in a lot of other situations. It is frustrating that we have all these other laws but we’re still not protected in our own homes, if you are a woman and you’re fighting with your domestic partner.

MARTIN: Is the issue here the belief that women should not defend themselves, but somehow that women don’t have the right to defend themselves?

HASENBECK: I have not talked to a single person who has said to me, Toni, women just don’t have the right to defend themselves. And I’ve had so many people be so for this idea. But then, the ones who aren’t for it, their argument, it just — it goes right back to — they won’t ever say that the woman doesn’t have the right, but these women, these husband-and-wife situations, those are just really sticky, and we just never know what’s going on in those situations.

MARTIN: You know, there are those who argue that the real issue here is guns. It’s guns. Is it really? There are just so many guns in this country, they’re so easy to get, they’re so easy to — for people to use when they are angry. And that while this bill is laudable in addressing a long- standing problem of inequity, that it doesn’t do anything to keep people alive. What would you say to that?

HASENBECK: Well, unfortunately, guns aren’t the only way that domestic partners kill each other. And guns aren’t the only way that domestic partners use coercion and manipulation. If guns were removed from every single one of these situations, I think a diligent person who is trying to harm their domestic partner would find another way. They would use a knife or they would use more advanced tools for strangulation or — you know, I’ve seen a lot of court files come across my desk, it’s not always guns. So — and I am a really conservative Republican woman who grew up on a farm. And so, I’m — it’s not the guns, it’s the people. And we have still got to find a way to protect women and men who find themselves in a situation where they have to kill their domestic partner to save their own life.

MARTIN: So, where are things now? Where does this bill stand? What are the prospects for this actually coming into law?

HASENBECK: Well, we’re going to look at rejecting the Senate amendments, which will cause it to go to a conference committee. And then, conferees will be assigned and then, we will have an opportunity to sit down and hammer out the details of this bill.

MARTIN: Do you feel confident that it’s going forward?

HASENBECK: Well, I do. I’ve had — I think I’ve had three bills signed by the governor already this session. And I will tell you, this session has been the most contentious one I have seen in five years. And a lot of really good policy has not made it through because of the politics inside our capital right now.

MARTIN: So, you are not sure?

HASENBECK: I’m not sure, but I feel good about it.

MARTIN: Representative Toni Hasenbeck, thank you for much for talking to us today.

HASENBECK: Hey, thank you. It was so nice to meet you. Thank you for having me.