Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Burden of Survival and Pursuing Justice

Opinion

The Burden of Survival and Pursuing Justice

A statue of Lady Justice.

Pixabay, WilliamCho

My neighbor was brutally attacked outside of his home one Friday night, when another resident, blasting loud music, yelled out his accusations, “You have been going through my things, you have been breaking into my home.” My neighbor gently told this man, “No, I have not gone through your things. Please lower your music.” His reply was a beating, fists that did great damage.

His wife was in the driveway, frozen. Horrified. Scared. She called the police and ran to her husband as the man fled.


My neighbor’s next memory begins at the County Hospital. His nose and several ribs were broken. He’s home now, bruised, bandaged—and still terrified. He asked why the police hadn’t acted. He had to call the police after the assault. He had to send them photos of his broken bones. The crime is a felony, but the police have no leads. I told my neighbor that this is too familiar in my field of work. When you are a victim, you become everything: The survivor, the patient, the detective, the crime scene investigator, the narrator.

The police asked him, why didn’t you have a camera? Why didn’t you let your dog out? Classic victim blaming.

Eventually, when he had to identify possible suspects, he was stressed: Could he recognize his attacker? Filing a civil restraining order was impossible because the police had not yet investigated the incident—or identified a suspect.

Welcome to my work, I said. Welcome to my world.

It is exhausting to be a victim.

Having to fight for your own survival is a tale as old as time. I hear it every day, and not just at work.

My neighbor’s story is far from unique. A teenager I know was the victim of a fight at school; her parents pushed the school for accommodations after the school did nothing. When I was in college, a friend was assaulted by her doctor. Years later, the burden to testify, to come forward, to try to stop him, was hers. Another friend suffered a beating outside of his place of employment. He had to track down security camera footage just to get the police to pay attention.

I know because I have practiced domestic violence law since 2004. Over the decades, the story is the same, always what the victim could or should have done differently.

Victim-blaming in the public sphere is brutal. Imagine when it happens at home. By your loved ones. Or by those who claim to love you. The blaming magnifies.

“Why didn’t you speak up?” They ask. “Why didn’t you tell anyone? Why did you marry that person?” Why why why.

A big part of our work is teaching survivors that the system is not fair. In the pursuit of justice, the system can hurt you more. Even in a crisis, you have to be your own advocate.

Plenty of information intended for people who experience domestic violence was applicable to my neighbor’s situation. I shared all the information I had on victim restitution, relocation assistance, security cameras, how to advocate with law enforcement, how to file a restraining order, and more. As helpful as the information might be, it forced him to take the time that he should have used for healing from the physical and emotional damage to become his own advocate. Even my offer rang hollow because all my well-intentioned advice shifted the burden from the authorities to my neighbor, the victim. I am proud to lead an organization that puts survivors first—but even I unintentionally burdened a victim, who should have been supported during a difficult time.

We can and must remove barriers to accessing justice.

During President Trump’s first administration, the failure to pursue white-collar crimes and cuts in the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) and related government funding had a massive impact on victims of crime, who now find it much more difficult to get access to legal aid. The Crime Victims Fund (CVF) did not pass the committee last session. We have another opportunity now to secure much-needed funding for victims of crime. Call or email your representatives now and urge them to pass this vital legislation. A similar law was enacted in California in 2024 to address the reduction in federal funding. It came into effect after a group of advocates urged their legislators to find funding to continue critical services—like keeping shelters and other related services for survivors running. Other states can use a similar model in the meantime. Congress must enact this law to continue to protect survivors.

On February 7, 2025, the Office on Violence Against Women, withdrew funding opportunities that had previously been available -- sustaining the toxic trend of blaming the victim.

Carmen McDonald is an attorney and the Executive Director of the Survivor Justice Center; she is a Public Voices Fellow of t he OpEdProject.

Read More

Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Once Defended Congress’ Power of the Purse. Now He Defies It.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy at a press conference in August

Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Once Defended Congress’ Power of the Purse. Now He Defies It.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has been one of the most vociferous defenders of President Donald Trump’s expansive use of executive authority, withholding billions of dollars in federal funding to states and dismissing protests of the White House’s boundary-pushing behavior as the gripings of “disenfranchised Democrats.”

But court documents reviewed by ProPublica show that a decade ago, as a House member, Duffy took a drastically different position on presidential power, articulating a full-throated defense of Congress’ role as a check on the president — one that resembled the very arguments made by speakers at recent anti-Trump “No Kings” rallies around the country.

Keep ReadingShow less
Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Killing suspected drug traffickers without trial undermines due process, human rights, and democracy. The war on drugs cannot be won through extrajudicial force.

Getty Images, SimpleImages

Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Life can only be taken in defense of life. That principle is as old as civilization itself, and it remains the bedrock of justice today. To kill another human being is justifiable only in imminent self‑defense or to protect the lives of innocent people. Yet the United States has recently crossed a troubling line: authorizing lethal strikes against suspected drug traffickers in international waters. Dozens have been killed without trial, without legal counsel, and without certainty of guilt.

This is not justice. It is punishment without due process, death without defense or judicial review. It is, in plain terms, an extrajudicial killing. And it is appalling.

Keep ReadingShow less
USA, Washington D.C., Supreme Court building and blurred American flag against blue sky.

Americans increasingly distrust the Supreme Court. The answer may lie not only in Court reforms but in shifting power back to states, communities, and Congress.

Getty Images, TGI /Tetra Images

The Supreme Court Has a Legitimacy Problem—But Washington’s Monopoly on Power Is the Real Crisis

Americans disagree on much, but a new poll shows we agree on this: we don’t trust the Supreme Court. According to the latest Navigator survey, confidence in the Court is at rock bottom, especially among younger voters, women, and independents. Large numbers support term limits and ethical reforms. Even Republicans — the group with the most reason to cheer a conservative Court — are losing confidence in its direction.

The news media and political pundits’ natural tendency is to treat this as a story about partisan appointments or the latest scandal. But the problem goes beyond a single court or a single controversy. It reflects a deeper Constitutional breakdown: too much power has been nationalized, concentrated, and funneled into a handful of institutions that voters no longer see as accountable.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

The Supreme Court’s review of Louisiana v. Callais could narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and limit challenges to racially discriminatory voting maps.

Getty Images, kali9

Louisiana v. Callais: The Supreme Court’s Next Test for Voting Rights

Background and Legal Landscape

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most powerful tools for combatting racial discrimination in voting. It prohibits any voting law, district map, or electoral process that results in a denial of the right to vote based on race. Crucially, Section 2 allows for private citizens and civil rights groups to challenge discriminatory electoral systems, a protection that has ensured fairer representation for communities of color. However, the Supreme Court is now considering whether to narrow Section 2’s reach in a high profile court case, Louisiana v. Callais. The case focuses on whether Louisiana’s congressional map—which only contains one majority Black district despite Black residents making up almost one-third of the population—violates Section 2 by diluting Black voting power. The Court’s decision to hear the case marks the latest chapter in the recent trend of judicial decisions around the scope and applications of the Voting Rights Act.

Keep ReadingShow less