Editorial: Monitoring the most dangerous abusers a good idea

There’s only one question about a bill introduced last year in the Legislature that would allow judges to order electronic monitoring of people subject to protection from abuse orders.

Why aren’t we doing this already?

It’s in the best interest of the state and public safety to keep tabs on potentially dangerous people likely to commit violence against someone they know. Too often, someone who can’t take “We’re through” for an answer resorts to violence.

And a piece of paper, by itself, can’t stop it.

State Rep. Anita Astorino Kulik, D-Kennedy, introduced a bill in 2023 that would electronically track defendants perceived by a court who pose a risk of violating a protection from abuse order.

State Sen. Vincent Hughes, D-Montgomery and Philadelphia counties, has proposed the bill since 2017. That’s not a coincidence.

The monitoring legislation was nicknamed Alina’s Law in memory of Alina Sheykhet, a University of Pittsburgh student murdered in 2017 by her ex-boyfriend, who had been served with a protection from abuse order.

It was reported last week that Alina’s Law appears to be headed for defeat in the face of opposition.

That opposition includes not only legislators in both parties but also the ACLU of Pennsylvania, which has raised objections because protection from abuse orders are civil court actions, while restricting a defendant’s freedom is typically the purview of criminal court, where evidentiary standards are more rigorous.

The basis of the ACLU’s objection is inconsistent. Courts frequently subject defendants to monitoring and even place them in jail following pretrial hearings where prosecutors don’t have to prove their allegations to a reasonable doubt but make only a prima facie case.

Under a state law that went into effect in 2019, county sheriff’s departments are required to confiscate weapons of those subject to a protection from abuse order, abridging their Second Amendment rights, after the same due process the ACLU calls insufficient for monitoring provisions.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled this year that PFA-related federal gun confiscation laws are constitutional.

The latest proposal — which must pass Pennsylvania’s Legislature in the dwindling number of days remaining for this two-year session — is considerably weaker. It would provide grant funding for monitoring protection from abuse defendants on the county level.

County judges already are empowered to order monitoring in protection from abuse cases. The primary difference is that the state would provide some funding for the program. Alina’s Law would have established a statewide standard.

The Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence works with law enforcement on a lethality assessment program, which uses a series of questions to determine a domestic violence victim’s risk of facing a deadly attack.

This tool is used to direct victims to programs in their areas. It could be used just as easily to mandate monitoring of suspected abusers to protect those at greatest risk.

The state’s divided politics appears to be the only reason it’s not.