R Street Testimony in Support of House Bill 1872, “Missouri Survivors’ Act.”
Testimony from:
Jillian E. Snider, Resident Senior Fellow of Criminal Justice and Civil Liberties, R Street Institute
Testimony in Support of House Committee Substitute for House Bill 1872,
“Missouri Survivors’ Act.”
March 31, 2026
House Committee on Children and Families
Chairwoman Jones, Vice Chair Tara, Ranking Member Raychel and members of the House Committee on Children & Families:
My name is Jillian E. Snider, and I am a resident senior fellow for criminal justice and civil liberties at the R Street Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public policy research organization. Our mission is to engage in policy research and outreach to promote free markets and limited, effective government in many areas, including the criminal justice system. I am also an adjunct instructor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a retired police officer from the New York City Police Department.
Throughout my law enforcement career, I saw firsthand the devastating toll that domestic violence takes on families, communities, and the officers who respond to those calls. That experience informs my perspective today: I approach this issue not as someone seeking to weaken accountability, but as someone who understands that the justice system works best when it accounts for the full circumstances of a case. Given R Street’s commitment to pragmatic, pro-public safety policies that improve both fairness and community well-being, we have a strong interest in the committee substitute for House Bill 1872, the Missouri Survivors’ Act, and we urge the committee to advance it.
R Street Institute has previously supported earlier iterations of this legislation, and we are pleased to see the Missouri Survivors’ Act continue to advance.[1] In the time since our prior testimony, the national landscape has shifted meaningfully in favor of survivor justice reform, reinforcing the urgency of action in Missouri.
Intimate partner violence is a pervasive problem across the country, but Missouri faces an especially acute challenge. Missouri has consistently ranked among the states with one of the highest rates of intimate partner violence. Approximately 41.8 percent of Missouri women and 35.2 percent of Missouri men have experienced intimate partner physical violence, sexual violence, or stalking in their lifetimes.[2] In 2018, Missouri law enforcement recorded 45,548 domestic violence incidents—a 10.3 percent increase from 2014—and 89 domestic violence-related homicides, accounting for nearly 12 percent of all homicides in the state that year.[3] Meanwhile, in 2019, domestic violence programs served over 36,000 Missourians, but more than 26,000 requests for services went unmet due to lack of resources.[4]
This widespread abuse has a direct connection to incarceration. Research synthesizing findings across multiple studies has found that experiences of intimate partner violence in adulthood are reported by approximately 70 to 80 percent of incarcerated women.[5] One study of women held in jails across multiple states found that 77 percent had experienced intimate partner violence, 93 percent of whom reported physical abuse, and 63 percent reported that the abuse involved a weapon.[6] The justice system has long failed to recognize how deeply intertwined women’s victimization and criminalization are—many women enter the system not despite their abuse, but because of it.[7] Indeed, since 1985, the number of incarcerated women in the United States has tripled, yet the system remains largely designed for men, failing to account for the trauma, coercion, and survival-driven behavior that characterize many women’s pathways to incarceration.[8] These are not abstract statistics. They describe women—often mothers—whose survival instincts led them into contact with the criminal justice system, frequently without courts ever hearing the full story of the abuse that shaped their actions.[9]
HCS HB 1872 takes a carefully structured approach. At sentencing or during plea proceedings, it requires courts to consider evidence of domestic abuse as a mitigating factor when the defendant can demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that abuse was a substantial contributing factor to the offense. Critically, the bill also creates a retroactive resentencing mechanism for individuals currently incarcerated for offenses committed prior to August 28, 2026, allowing them to petition the court for review.
The bill includes robust safeguards. Defendants must present corroborating documentary evidence—including at least one piece from an official source such as a court record, law enforcement report, hospital record, or order of protection. The legislation also expressly excludes individuals required to register as sex offenders and those sentenced to death. Judicial discretion is preserved throughout, and the resentencing process includes provisions for prosecutorial notification, opportunity to oppose, written findings of fact, and appellate review. This is not a blanket reduction in sentences. It is a structured, evidence-based mechanism that ensures courts can weigh the full context of a case.
Missouri would not be charting new territory. The national momentum for survivor justice legislation has accelerated significantly. Oklahoma’s Survivors’ Act took effect in September 2024 and has already begun producing results—the first individual resentenced under the law was released in January 2025 after serving 34 years.[10] Georgia’s Survivor Justice Act was signed into law by Governor Kemp in May 2025 with overwhelming bipartisan support, and has been described as the most comprehensive survivor justice statute in the nation.[11] The American Legislative Exchange Council has adopted a model Survivor Justice Act, and additional states including New Jersey have passed their own version.[12] Survivor sentencing laws offer a responsible, structured way to correct sentences that failed to account for trauma—and prosecutors’ practical concerns about judicial efficiency and credible petitions are addressed by the evidentiary standards and gatekeeping provisions built into these bills.[13] Missouri has an opportunity to join and build on this growing bipartisan consensus.
A significant aspect of HCS HB 1872 is its recognition of coercion as central to many domestic violence-related offenses. Many survivors commit crimes under duress—often as a direct result of threats, manipulation, or control exercised by their abusers.[14] Under current Missouri law, defendants in such situations may have limited ability to present evidence of that coercion at sentencing. This bill directly addresses that gap, allowing survivors the opportunity to demonstrate that they acted under conditions of abuse.
Current sentencing practices often fail to account for the effects of prolonged abuse, leading to disproportionately harsh outcomes for individuals whose offending was driven by trauma.[15] HCS HB 1872 provides courts with the tools to consider those circumstances without eliminating accountability. Research on sentencing reform has shown that when judges can weigh trauma as a factor, outcomes improve in terms of both fairness and rehabilitation, contributing to lower recidivism rates.[16]
The Missouri Survivors’ Act provides critical, long-overdue protections for survivors of domestic abuse who have been drawn into the criminal justice system by the very violence inflicted upon them. It ensures that courts can hear the full context of a defendant’s experience, promotes proportionate sentencing, and offers a structured path to resentencing for those whose abuse was never adequately considered. It does all of this while preserving judicial discretion, prosecutorial involvement, and meaningful evidentiary standards.
I urge the committee to pass HCS HB 1872 and take a meaningful step toward justice for survivors in Missouri.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Jillian E. Snider
R Street Institute
Resident Senior Fellow, Criminal Justice and Civil Liberties
jsnider@rstreet.org
[1] Lisel Petis, “R Street Testimony in Support of HB 989, Missouri Survivors’ Act,” R Street Institute, March 26, 2025.https://www.rstreet.org/outreach/r-street-testimony-in-support-of-hb-989-missouri-survivors-act/.
[2] National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, “Domestic Violence in Missouri,” 2020, data derived from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010-2012 State Report last accessed March 26, 2026.https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2497/ncadv_missouri_fact_sheet_2020.pdf.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Melissa E. Dichter, “Women’s Experiences of Abuse as a Risk Factor for Incarceration: A Research Update,” VAWnet, a project of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, July 2015.https://vawnet.org/sites/default/files/materials/files/2016-09/AR_IncarcerationUpdate.pdf.
[6] Dana DeHart et al., “Life history models of female offending: The roles of serious mental illness and trauma in women’s pathways to jail,” Psychology of Women Quarterly 38:1, (2014), pp. 138-151.https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313494357.
[7] Lisel Petis & Sarah Anderson, “From Victim to Defendant: How Justice Falls Short for Women,” R Street Institute, Policy Study 335, October 2025.https://www.rstreet.org/research/from-victim-to-defendant-how-justice-falls-short-for-women/.
[8] Lisel Petis, “Confronting the Women’s Incarceration Crisis: Prevention and Intervention,” R Street Institute, May 2025.https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/confronting-the-womens-incarceration-crisis-prevention-and-intervention/.
[9] Petis & Anderson,https://www.rstreet.org/research/from-victim-to-defendant-how-justice-falls-short-for-women/; Jillian Snider, “Confronting the Women’s Incarceration Crisis: Police Encounters and Prosecution, R Street Institute, October 2025. https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/confronting-the-womens-incarceration-crisis-police-encounters-and-prosecution/.
[10] “The Oklahoma Survivors Act: A Transformative Step for Justice,” Fair and Just Prosecution, February 2025.https://fairandjustprosecution.org/2025/02/the-oklahoma-survivors-act-a-transformative-step-for-justice/.
[11] “Georgia Survivor Justice Act,” Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence, last accessed March 26, 2026.https://gcadv.org/sji/sji-about/gasurvivorjusticeact/.
[12] “Survivor Justice Act,” American Legislative Exchange Council, last accessed March 26, 2026.https://alec.org/model-policy/public-safety-and-judicial-accountability-act/.
[13] Lisel Petis, “Prosecutors’ Case for Survivor Sentencing Laws,” R Street Institute, May 2025.https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/prosecutors-case-for-survivor-sentencing-laws/.
[14] Stephen R. Galoob & Erin Sheley, “Reconceiving Coercion-Based Criminal Defenses,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 112:2, (2022), pp. 265-328.https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol112/iss2/3/.
[15] Liz Komar et al., “Sentencing Reform for Criminalized Survivors: Learning from New York’s Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act,” The Sentencing Project and Survivors Justice Project, April 2023.https://www.sentencingproject.org/app/uploads/2024/02/Sentencing-Reform-for-Criminalized-Survivors.pdf.
[16] Ibid.