Change my location 
|
|
Article History There are updates to this article.
)
Yvette Cade, a domestic violence survivor from Prince George’s County, testifies Thursday in Annapolis. – AP
BALTIMORE (Map, News) - The pain medications made Yvette Cade hallucinate.
With 60 percent of the Prince George’s County woman’s body covered in severe burns, Cade saw blue jeans and sneakers peeking below the hospital curtains surrounding her bed. Her husband — the man who had doused her body in gasoline before tossing a match — was back.
“He was there to make sure that I was dead,” Cade said.
Cade, one of an increasing number of women set ablaze in violent domestic disputes, is the inspiration behind a proposal before the legislature that creates a new crime of intentionally setting a person on fire. Members of a House of Delegates committee Thursday debated the proposal, which would establish the felony crime carrying a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison or a $50,000 fine.
Prosecutors said current attempted murder charges involving fire incidents are difficult to prove and victim advocates said assault charges are insufficient.
Weeks before Cade’s October 2005 incident, a Prince George’s County judge dismissed her request for a protective order, she said during testimony Thursday. The bill is one of several before the legislature targeting domestic violence, including making protective orders permanent if the abuser is convicted and incarcerated.
One lawmaker wants to create a crime for accused abusers who violate no-contact orders before their trial. Another wants to enable judges to force an accused abuser to turn in guns under temporary protective orders.
The proposal could save lives, said Cheryl Kravitz, a member of the state’s Council on Family Violence Prevention.
“My abuser kept a baseball bat under the bed and would find numerous sadistical ways to intimidate me,” Kravitz said. “I have no doubt the next step would have been gun violence and my murder.”
The proposal met resistance from some lawmakers, who said the bill infringes on second amendment rights of people presumed innocent.
“These individuals have not been found guilty of a crime,” said Del. Michael Smigiel, an eastern shore Republican.
A vote on the proposals has not yet been set.
jmalarkey@baltimoreexaminer.com
 Not ranked |
 EMAIL ME THIS STORY |
ARTICLE HISTORY 
Comments from Examiner Readers
2:21 PM MST on Sat., Jun. 14, 2008 re: "A history of healing victims of violence"
Report as inappropriate
8:27 PM MST on Sat., Feb. 23, 2008
re: "Woman set ablaze testifies in support of bill targeting domestic violence"
Report as inappropriate
4:07 PM MST on Sat., Feb. 23, 2008
re: "Woman set ablaze testifies in support of bill targeting domestic violence"
Report as inappropriate
6:06 AM MST on Sat., Feb. 23, 2008
re: "Woman set ablaze testifies in support of bill targeting domestic violence"
Report as inappropriate
3:23 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007
re: "More people being turned away from domestic violence shelters"
Report as inappropriate
2:30 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007
re: "Domestic-violence victims fail to show due to fear, ignorance"
Report as inappropriate
2:25 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007
re: "More people being turned away from domestic violence shelters"
Report as inappropriate
7:38 PM MST on Tue., May. 8, 2007
re: "Domestic-violence victims fail to show due to fear, ignorance"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
Where's the photo?
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
These protective orders are basically only as good as the person they are served on. Some people have no regard for the law, and certainly this piece of paper will not stop anyone determined to contact (and in Yvette's case unfortunately, harm) the petitioner. These orders are mostly used to get a "leg-up" in a divorce proceeding, vacate the spouse from the house, etc. and not for its original intention of protecting someone from a person they fear because of abuse. Often people file for these orders because they feel threatened, but the law states a qualification for this order is an assault or fear of "imminent bodily harm". Not all people who file for these orders qualify, but the judges and district court commissioners who grant them feel as though they need to proceed with caution and grant the order simply out of caution. The orders are becoming abused- the petitioners don't even show up in court to continue the order most times b/c it was just for a temp fix for that time.
94 agree | 97 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Wendy Weinbaum said:
As a Jewess in the US, may I remind everyone that America wasn't won with a registered gun? And that criminals are stopped by FIREARMS, not by talk? That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!!
97 agree | 107 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I feel very , very sorry for Yvette. What a babaric attack! The perpetrator should spend the rest of his scumbag life behind bars (although he probably won't). However, I must strongly dissagree about the need for worse protection laws. These so-called "protection orders" are already unconstitutional and out of control. In the state I live in you can put out of the home that you personally and solely own by an affidavit that merely implies that your spouse "feels threatened" by you. They will be coached by the police as to how to screw you out of everything you own. You will be reduced to living out of your car if you don't have anywhere else to go. They will of course, take away your gun collection regardless of it's value. You will be allowed one supervised visit to retreive some of your clothes. That's when you will probably meet your wife's new boyfriend whom you will also be supporting until you get to the divorce hearing. In the meantime you pay for everything! It happenned
78 agree | 80 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Most of these woman are protecting there kids from the courts giving custody part time or visitations. If these men can not treat a woman good how can he be trusted to behave around a child. Burden of proof is on th mother, the courts with no proof will grant him unsupervised visits or part custody. Getting child support is also the battle, help fund these programs. hey wont pay if the woman leave as a toll for harassment, what the state collects is not enough to survive.
152 agree | 118 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
“Sometimes it’s fear. If they’ve filed for a protective order against their abuser and their abuser gets to them and says, ‘If you show up, I’m going to kill you’ or ‘If you show up, I’ll take the kids’ — it makes it very hard.” Or more often than that, the "protective order" is used as a pre-litigation tactic in what is likely to be a messy divorce. The mother gets a no-contact order, then has to power of the state to keep the dad from seeing the children, temporary maintanece is set, and then after the petiton and temp. orders are filed, dad might get to see kids after a few months. This type of order is a feminist litigation device, and usually dropped once the divorce is settled.
218 agree | 208 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Yeah, there isn't 'enough' funding. Please let me pay more for taxes to bail people out of the situations they get themselves into. How nice. You have to love the nanny society we live in today.... 'my crackhead boyfriend who fathered my fifteen kids slapped me around again! Society needs to put me up, that is, until i need another fix at which point i'll get back with him.' Shocking.
138 agree | 144 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
A better question may have been, "What happens in the domestic violence cases that do show?" What percentages of Padley's staffs' cases win? How does the law level the playing field of women who lack the financial ability to fight "financial abuse" along side the more obvious "physical abuse". I was a victim of physical abuse - hardly one of those "ignorant" cases. I held a master's degree and knew that I had a "good case". My court appointed attorney told me so. The day of justice came....I was made to listen to my 911 call. Then, emotions raw, I was told it was a "he said"/"she said" case. He walked away the case tabled. If he physically abused me again, the first case would be re-opened. He was a college graduate, too. He didn't need to attack me again. He successful took me to court over and over , slowly depleating my alimony, child support, and any savings I had. Financial abuse. He always had a better attorney. I had the most to lose, and did.
311 agree | 269 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree