Committee hears bill to restrict work release, probation for repeat domestic battery convictions

The Kansas Senate Judiciary Committee opened a hearing on House Bill 2192, which would change penalties under KSA 21-54-14 (domestic battery) by restricting eligibility for work release, probation and certain sentence reductions for people convicted of multiple domestic battery offenses within a five-year period.

The bill, as explained by the reviser, preserves the statutory fine range and the 90-day-to-one-year sentence tied to second and subsequent convictions but raises the minimum time an offender must serve before eligibility for probation or work release. For second convictions within five years, HB 2192 would require at least 20 days of imprisonment before probation or work release eligibility (the House committee had originally proposed 45 days and later amended it to 20 and removed a consecutive-days requirement). For third or subsequent convictions within five years, the bill would require at least 90 days served before probation and would remove the option to serve those 90 mandatory days via work release; the bill retains the stated fine ranges ($500–$1,000 for certain second-offense penalties and $1,000–$7,500 for third/subsequent penalties).

Representative Mike Thompson, state representative, said the bill "limits or prohibits work release, probation, suspension, reduction of sentence, or parole for people convicted of multiple offenses of domestic battery." He told the committee the measure is “focused ... on repeat offenders” and that the bill aims to “stiffen the penalties for repeat offenders” so victims and communities are better protected.

William (Will) Hurst, assistant district attorney, Johnson County District Attorney’s Office, said prosecutors who focus on domestic violence see frequent repeat offending and that brief custodial stays "are simply not enough." "Two days in jail for an offender who has committed multiple violent crimes within a short period of time is simply not enough," Hurst said, adding that Johnson County dedicates eight prosecutors to domestic violence cases and that many of those prosecutors each carry more than 100 cases.

Several survivors and private citizens gave proponent testimony describing personal histories of repeated abuse and the limits of existing responses. Christina Harris, identified as a private citizen and domestic violence survivor, described multiple assaults, medical injuries and difficulties securing shelter and charges. "Today, three women are gonna die from domestic violence," Harris told the committee, and she urged passage of the bill and additional resources for shelters. Roberta Jackson, another survivor, described an offender with convictions in multiple states who repeatedly received probation and later reoffended; she said the criminal justice system’s current responses amounted to "slaps on the wrist." Both urged stricter penalties and earlier intervention.

Supporters cited statewide data during testimony: the reviser and proponents referenced Kansas Bureau of Investigation and sentencing commission figures (the transcript records a KBI citation of roughly 22,847 domestic-violence incidents in 2023, 11,425 incidents resulting in arrest, and 32 domestic-violence homicides, and Kansas Sentencing Commission counts of individuals sentenced for domestic-battery-related conduct). Proponents argued that requiring assessments at first conviction and restricting early release for repeat offenders would reduce future harm.

Opponents urged caution about removing judicial discretion and the broader effects on families. Emily Brandt, representing the judicial/indigent defense legislative committee, said she was "appreciative" of the House amendment removing a consecutive-days requirement but warned that HB 2192 targets misdemeanor domestic-battery offenses and could push low-wage workers and households further into poverty if offenders lose access to work release. "This bill takes away important discretion from our district court judges," Brandt said, adding that judges and local prosecutors are in the best position to tailor sentences and consider victim and community safety in individual cases.

Committee members asked proponents and opponents about the empirical basis for the selected time periods (20 days and 90 days) and about the effectiveness of domestic-violence offender assessments and batterer-intervention programs; witnesses and conferees said some data suggest interventions and work release programs can reduce recidivism in certain contexts, but opponents and some questioners urged more localized data and emphasized prosecutorial discretion for charging more serious offenses as felonies.

The hearing record included an array of written proponent statements, including testimony submitted by the Kansas Coalition Against ****** and Domestic Violence (submitted via Watkins Public Strategies) and a written proponent statement from the Office of the Attorney General’s victim services division. The committee closed the hearing without a vote on HB 2192; members indicated additional consideration may follow.

The committee heard extended emotional testimony from survivors, and members signaled continued attention to the balance between victim safety, offender rehabilitation and judicial discretion. No formal committee vote on HB 2192 was recorded at the hearing.