A response to The Republican: accountability starts with understanding the system

Savannah Hamilton's recent letter in The Republican took courage to write. Speaking publicly about how victims of domestic violence and sexual assault are treated is not easy, and her concern for people at some of the most frightening moments of their lives comes through clearly. She deserves to be thanked for raising it, not argued down.

Much of what she wrote is simply right. Victims deserve to be treated with dignity. An officer who says protective orders are handed out "like candy," as she describes, is not showing the professionalism this community expects, and a remark like that can make a frightened person wonder whether it is worth asking for help at all.

This response is not meant to dismiss her concerns. It is meant to add some context about how the legal system is built, because several of the situations she describes are shaped by rules that most of us never have reason to learn until we are caught up in them. Knowing those rules can help victims, their families and all of us press for accountability in the places where it matters most.

A word to The Republican

Our criticism here is not of Ms. Hamilton, who wrote from genuine concern. It is of the decision by The Republican to publish her letter as it stood, without any context, editor's note or explanation of the legal standards it touches on.

Newspapers are right to give readers a voice, and letters to the editor are an important part of that. But a newspaper is responsible for what it chooses to print. When a letter describes how police and prosecutors handle sexual assault and domestic violence reports, and leaves readers with the impression that victims will be dismissed or talked out of seeking justice, an editor has a duty to make sure the public also understands how the process actually works. A short note explaining that victims can apply for charges directly with a District Court commissioner, or that the State's Attorney, not the officer, decides whether to prosecute, would have served readers well. Publishing it without that context fell short of the standard local readers should expect from a newspaper of record.

There is also a basic question of fairness. The letter describes officers making dismissive remarks and discouraging victims, and it raises the question of whether charges have been dropped to protect an agency's reputation. Those are serious claims about local law enforcement, the very people victims are asked to trust, and about the charging decisions that involve the State's Attorney's Office. Yet the letter as published carried no response from any of them. A fundamental principle of responsible journalism is that when a publication prints serious accusations, the people and institutions accused are contacted and given a fair chance to respond. That step protects readers as much as it protects the agencies: it lets the public weigh both sides, it surfaces facts the writer may not have had, and it often produces exactly the kind of transparency the letter asks for. A phone call to the sheriff and the State's Attorney before publication would have given readers a far more complete and fair picture, and it would have given those agencies the opportunity to explain their policies, acknowledge any real problems and tell victims directly that their reports will be taken seriously.

This matters because of who else reads these pages. Federal crime victimization surveys conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics have found year after year that most rapes and sexual assaults are never reported to police, and that victims commonly cite a belief that police would not or could not help as one of their reasons. Domestic violence is underreported for similar reasons. A person who is weighing whether to come forward, and who reads in their local paper that officers will brush them off or steer them away, may simply decide not to call. A newspaper cannot control every opinion that is submitted to it, but it can make sure its pages do not leave a vulnerable reader believing that help is not available. Here, that care was missing.

If you or someone you know has been harmed, please report it. The options described below exist for you, and advocates are listed at the end of this article.

Three different standards of proof

Maryland's courts use different levels of proof depending on what is at stake.

• Probable cause is what police need to arrest someone or file charges. It means there is a reasonable basis to believe a crime was committed and that this person committed it. It is a low bar by design.
• Preponderance of the evidence is the civil standard. It means "more likely than not." This is the standard a judge uses for a final protective order in Maryland.
• Beyond a reasonable doubt is what the State must prove to convict someone of a crime. It is the highest standard in our legal system, because a conviction can take away a person's liberty.

A case can meet the first two standards and still fall short of the third. That gap can be painful for a victim to experience, and it is worth understanding, because it explains a great deal of what happens after a report is made.

Protective orders are meant to be accessible

Ms. Hamilton's first concern is about protective orders. (Her letter quotes officers using the term "PFA," or Protection From Abuse order, which is what Pennsylvania calls them. In Maryland, the equivalents are protective orders for family and household members and intimate partners, and peace orders for others.)

In Maryland, a temporary protective order can be issued if a judge finds "reasonable grounds to believe" abuse occurred, often based on the petitioner's sworn statement. A final protective order requires a finding by a preponderance of the evidence after both sides have a chance to be heard. Maryland once required "clear and convincing evidence" for a final order, and lawmakers lowered it to preponderance to make protection easier to obtain.

In other words, protective orders are supposed to be within reach. The fact that they are granted more readily than criminal convictions is the law doing what lawmakers intended. That makes a dismissive comment about them all the more out of place, and Ms. Hamilton is right to call it out. No one should be discouraged from seeking one.

When an officer says a case is hard to prove

Ms. Hamilton writes that sexual assault victims may be discouraged from pursuing charges because officers believe there is not enough evidence or that prosecutors would be unlikely to win the case. This is one of the hardest parts of the system for survivors, and it is worth explaining carefully.

First, a survivor's own account is evidence. Maryland's appellate courts have long held that a rape victim's testimony, standing alone, is legally sufficient evidence. No corroboration is required.

Second, when an officer or prosecutor says a case will be difficult, they are usually thinking about the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard and what a jury will need to see over a long and often draining process. Delivered with care, an honest assessment can help a survivor make informed choices. Delivered carelessly, it can feel like being turned away. The difference is often in how it is said, and that is a fair thing to expect officers to get right.

Third, the officer is not the final word. In Maryland, the county State's Attorney decides whether to prosecute. And any person can apply for a statement of charges directly with a District Court commissioner, who independently decides whether probable cause exists.

Fourth, a survivor does not have to decide everything at once. Maryland has no statute of limitations for rape and other serious felonies, and a forensic exam can be done and the evidence preserved even if a survivor is not ready to report to police.

If anyone was told they could not report, or that a report would not be taken, that should be raised with the agency and the State's Attorney. Survivors should know those doors remain open.

How domestic violence arrests work

Ms. Hamilton raises a concern about arrests made without fully assessing injuries or obtaining medical documentation.

Maryland law (Criminal Procedure § 2-204) allows an officer to make a warrantless arrest in a domestic violence situation when three things are true: the officer has probable cause to believe the person battered a spouse or someone they live with, there is evidence of physical injury, and the person might flee, hurt someone or destroy evidence unless arrested right away. The incident must also be reported within 48 hours. The law lets officers separate the people involved immediately, rather than leaving someone in danger while paperwork is gathered.

Medical records are not required before an arrest, though they are valuable evidence and injuries are often documented afterward. An arrest is the beginning of a case, not its conclusion. Ms. Hamilton's underlying point still stands: thorough documentation and an offer of medical care should happen every time. The Lethality Assessment Program, created in Maryland in 2005 by the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence and now used by police in Maryland and many other states, is designed to make that kind of consistent screening routine.

When charges are dropped

Charges are filed on probable cause and must later be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Between those two points, much can change. Witnesses become unavailable. Victims sometimes ask not to proceed, often for reasons that are deeply personal or tied to their safety. Lab results come back. New facts emerge.

In Maryland, the decision to drop a case belongs to the prosecutor, not the arresting officer. A case may be dismissed through a nolle prosequi ("nol pros"), or placed on the stet docket, an inactive status. Either side can bring a stetted case back for trial within one year, and after that only with a judge's approval for good cause.

Ms. Hamilton's call for transparency is a reasonable one. Prosecutors are often limited in what they can say publicly about a particular case, especially when a victim's privacy is involved, but they can and should explain how those decisions are made. Victims also have rights under Article 47 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, including the right to be treated with dignity, respect and sensitivity, and, on request, to be informed of, present at and heard in criminal proceedings. Anyone with questions about a dropped case can contact the State's Attorney's victim-witness coordinator.

Common ground

Ms. Hamilton closes by saying that supporting law enforcement and demanding accountability are not mutually exclusive. We could not agree more.

Our hope is that a little more understanding of how the system is designed helps point that accountability where it will do the most good. A dropped charge is not always a cover-up, and a frank conversation about evidence is not always discouragement. But how those conversations happen, and whether victims leave them feeling heard, matters a great deal. Thank you to Ms. Hamilton for starting this conversation in our community.

Help and resources

• Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence: mnadv.org
• Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault: mcasa.org
• National Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-799-7233
• Information on protective and peace orders: Maryland Judiciary, mdcourts.gov

This response is general information about Maryland law and is not legal advice. Anyone seeking protection or considering charges should contact the District Court, the local State's Attorney's Office, or a victim advocate.

Update, Oct. 15, 2026: responding to reader feedback

Some readers have asked whether a letter to the editor should be held to the same standard as a news story, and whether asking agencies to respond would only stack the deck against one resident. These are fair questions, and we want to answer them directly.

Letters to the editor exist to give readers a voice, and nothing about Ms. Hamilton's letter is unfair. We are not asking any paper to silence a letter writer or to clear a letter with the sheriff first. What we are asking is that both voices run side by side.

The Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics says it applies to all who provide "news and commentary to the public," and that ethical journalism "should be accurate, fair and in context." The code, revised this month, also calls on journalists to "without exception, diligently provide fair opportunity for subjects of news coverage to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing." A letters page is commentary a newspaper chooses to publish, and when a letter makes serious claims about local public offices, a chance to respond is part of giving readers that context.

This is not an unheard-of practice. During political season, the Napa Valley Register contacts the person criticized in a letter before publication and prints their brief response below it, a policy its editor and publisher, Dan Evans, says the paper adopted from the St. Helena Star. That policy is written for political letters that criticize a specific person, and Ms. Hamilton's letter is about agencies, not a candidate or a named individual. We believe the same rule of thumb should apply to public services like the Sheriff's Office and the State's Attorney's Office, the offices victims are asked to trust and call.

Two more facts make this case harder for the public to weigh. To our knowledge, the agencies were not told about the letter before it ran. And it was published behind a paywall, so many of the people it is about, and many readers who might want to hear their side, cannot read it in full. Serious claims that their subjects don't know about, in a place much of the public can't see, are harder for anyone to answer and harder for the community to judge fairly.

Our goal remains the same: that no victim in Garrett County reads these exchanges and decides help is not available. It is.

Source: Napa Valley Register, Dan Evans's column on how its letters page works during political season