Prosecutors' Case for Survivor Sentencing Laws
As a prosecutor, I was committed to the pursuit of truth and justice—not simply securing convictions, but ensuring outcomes reflected the full reality of each case. And, that commitment did not end with a verdict. Too often, though, the justice system failed to fully account for the trauma that drove some survivors to commit offenses connected to their abuse.
Survivors often end up criminalized for behaviors deeply connected to the abuse they endured, such as preemptively defending themselves against violent partners, being coerced into illegal acts, or committing crimes of survival. Studies show a staggering connection between trauma and incarceration. The vast majority of incarcerated women report surviving domestic or sexual violence. One study revealed that Black Americans who experience four or more traumatic events are nearly five times more likely to be incarcerated compared to those with no traumatic experiences.
Perhaps more than anyone else, prosecutors should understand the profound impact trauma has on individuals in abusive relationships. They work daily with survivors who struggle to recall events clearly, find it painful to confront their abuser, or let fear destroy their lives. They know that trauma shapes behavior and does not disappear simply because of an arrest. That knowledge should inform a willingness to reexamine cases where trauma was hidden or misunderstood. Survivor sentencing laws offer a responsible, structured way to correct sentences that failed to account for these realities.
Oklahoma and Georgia have recently taken steps to respond better to victims. The Oklahoma Survivors’ Act, which went into effect Sept. 1, 2024, allows survivors to petition the court for resentencing if they can show that domestic abuse significantly contributed to their conviction. In a state with one of the highest female incarceration rates in the country and the highest rate of domestic violence, this law is a long-overdue step toward a more just system. Twelve cases were filed in the first six months, with seven approved to file a formal application.
Currently awaiting governor signature, the Georgia Survivor Justice Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Under the law, survivors who demonstrate that abuse was a significant contributing factor to the offense may present evidence of that abuse at trial, seek a reduced sentence after conviction, or request reconsideration. Not only does the bill allow for compassion, it also establishes clear legal standards for when a mitigated sentence is appropriate.
Other states, such as Missouri, are making strides on similar legislation, reflecting a broader national trend toward reassessing sentences in cases involving survivor trauma.
Prosecutors are not fundamentally opposed to these policies. However, when they do oppose them, their concerns are based on practicality rather than principle. Frivolous claims, wasted resources, and emotional strain on those involved in the case are real concerns that smart policy design can address. Generally, petitioners must demonstrate a history of abuse as well as its significance as a contributing factor to the crime. Judges retain full discretion to deny meritless requests, and survivors must go through a formal hearing that allows input from prosecutors, victims, and other stakeholders. These are not automatic releases; rather, they are carefully considered reviews of individual cases.
Certainly, survivor-informed sentencing can challenge some prosecutors’ assumptions, processes, and even pride. But justice requires humility and the courage to admit when more than just statutory facts must be considered or that the system didn’t get it right the first time.
Many survivors are unable or too scared to speak about their abuse during their trial. Some aren’t believed. Others are never asked. Survivor sentencing laws give prosecutors and courts the opportunity to hear those voices, weighing trauma, power and control, and cycles of violence to reflect the full story.
It’s time for more states to follow the lead of Oklahoma and Georgia. Prosecutors’ practical concerns—such as protecting judicial efficiency, ensuring credible petitions, and respecting victims—are valid, but survivor sentencing laws should (and often do) address these concerns through sufficient evidentiary standards, judicial gatekeeping, and opportunities for victim input.
This is not softness. It’s not leniency. It does not ignore accountability. It reflects the commitment prosecutors make to uphold truth, fairness, and justice.