Erin’s Law, a Disclosure, and a Letter That Reached the House Floor
A mother's fight for justice and systemic change after her child's disclosure of abuse reveals troubling gaps in how Oregon enforces laws designed to protect children.
When a Child Has the Words to Speak
In 2017, one of my children learned something many kids her age never get taught directly—the difference between safe and unsafe touch. Her school delivered the Safe Touch Program, a curriculum designed to satisfy and support Erin's Law, legislation Oregon adopted in 2015 requiring public schools to teach age-appropriate sexual abuse prevention and awareness.
She was ten. Following the lesson, she told her teacher—someone she trusted—that a close family member had "broke the safe touch rule."
That sentence, made possible by a curriculum that gave her the words, is what ultimately helped free her from her abuser.
It is also why I have spent years watching how Erin's Law is carried out. What I have found is troubling: many Oregon school districts remain out of compliance, and since the law passed, the state has amended it in ways that, in my view, quietly weaken its purpose. A law on paper protects a child only when it is actually taught in the classroom.
What happened next in our case moved quickly, and the child advocacy center and law enforcement involved were, without exaggeration, excellent—the kind of trained, trauma-informed response every family in this situation deserves and far too few receive.
They cared.
Where it became even harder was in the courtroom, and later, specifically in what I didn't yet understand about how plea negotiations work.
I had assumed that when a state passes a law like Jessica's Law—mandatory minimum sentencing for certain crimes committed against a child under 12—that law is what governs the outcome.
I learned, case by case, that prosecutors can sometimes structure charges and plea agreements in ways that avoid those mandatory provisions, including by negotiating pleas to offenses that do not carry the same mandatory sentencing or supervision requirements.
I wrote about exactly how that happened in our county in a letter I sent in 2021, opposing a District Attorney's nomination for U.S. Attorney. That letter quickly found its way to the floor of the Oregon House.
I'm sharing it here as it was written because I think the specifics matter more than a summary would:
June 14, 2021
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is regarding a candidate who is being considered for the U.S. Attorney position for the State of Oregon, John Hummel.
We were introduced to the Deschutes County District Attorney's Office in April of 2017. John Hummel was the District Attorney and currently remains in the position. My then-10-year-old child attended the Safe Touch Program at school, and following the course, she disclosed to her teacher that a close family member had "broke the safe touch rule."
Following my child's disclosures, a series of events took place that ultimately incarcerated the perpetrator, with bail set at $600,000 and an indictment consisting of 26 first-degree counts. Those counts included: 10 counts of Sodomy in the first degree, four counts of Rape in the first degree, two counts of Unlawful Penetration in the first degree, and 10 counts of Sexual Abuse in the first degree. Inconceivable crimes were committed against a young child by a once-trusted family member.
Suddenly, we were entrenched in a rapid education about how the judicial process "works" and learned about Jessica's Law—a law adopted by the State of Oregon in 2006. The law requires minimum mandatory sentencing for offenders convicted of first-degree rape, sodomy, or unlawful penetration involving victims under 12 years old. The MINIMUM, MANDATORY sentence for each count is 25 years (with no possibility of early release), with strict post-prison supervision that includes 10 years of active supervision and lifelong tracking for offenders convicted of the applicable crimes. According to the indictment and Oregon law, the defendant in our child's case was looking at 462½ years based on the crimes committed (most of those counts came from our child's traumatic recollection of the acts that were done to her, along with the defendant's confessions to two Jessica's Law crimes and two Measure 11 crimes—62½ years based on his confessions)—not much time for someone who rapes and sodomizes children. However, this offers the prospect of some sort of justice and peace of mind for our child, family, friends, community members, and all of humanity by locking up a monster capable of such crimes.
Our case concluded in May of 2018, and the defendant accepted a plea settlement for 300 months (no Jessica's Law, a couple of Alford Pleas—which were a complete travesty as well as a mockery of our child, who survived the unspeakable acts—the possibility to earn good time, and 36-month post-prison supervision). This led to more research trying to understand what was going on in Deschutes County.
Initially, we naively assumed that John Hummel had a personal vendetta against us because of the very forward and direct advocacy I did while fighting for my child, but soon learned an even more unfortunate reality: We were contacted by other families with similar stories and learned that removing Jessica's Law provisions was standard in Deschutes County. To clarify—if you are under 12, raped, sodomized, or unlawfully penetrated, regardless of the merits of the case, the defendant will be offered a "good deal." It is almost unbelievable that a District Attorney would be soft on sex crimes committed against children, yet that is the reality in Deschutes County.
Jessica's Law seems simple, yet appropriate for the crimes it encompasses, but there is a very disturbing catch: Our District Attorney, John Hummel, does not believe in Jessica's Law because he feels that the law is too harsh for criminals. Yes, you read that correctly—some of the most heinous crimes committed are not prosecuted to the full extent of the law adopted by the citizens of Oregon based on the personal beliefs of our District Attorney; he has blatantly stated that to us.
Early on in our case, we were informed that the judicial system and process were nothing more than a revictimization for victims, which has turned out to be disturbingly true. We are aware that not all cases have the merits to be fully prosecuted and not all defendants are guilty of the crimes they are accused of; however, NOT ONE Jessica's Law case in Deschutes County has been pleaded out as such during the duration of time that John Hummel has been DA. Therefore, the pleas offered and accepted for Jessica's Law cases include no lifelong monitoring, no 10 years of active supervision, and no adequate justice for victims.
We could not even begin to understand how this was possible, given that our child was 10 years old at the time of her disclosures. We did some research to hopefully comprehend how this was happening. We learned that in the descriptions of the various 26 counts on the indictment, the DA's Office removed the language of "a child under the age of 12" and replaced it with "a child under the age of 14" and "a child under the age of 16." Those are the counts plea bargains are based on, and that is how the DA's Office maneuvers around Jessica's Law—intentionally guileful, yet beyond disturbing.
Fast-forward to March of 2020. My husband and I met with John Hummel to discuss this very issue. Since he refused to offer any direct answers during that meeting, we submitted a public records request to see if we were understanding our research correctly. Our request was for all Jessica's Law cases from January of 2014 to that present time (72 cases under John Hummel's reign and a price tag of $2,100 for the records request). The steep price tag was for the DA's Office to gather the requested information, redact any personal information to protect victims, and print the documents that were paid for. Well, the DA's Office did not redact all the victims' information or print the documents as agreed upon. However, they did request another $821.25 to print them, and John Hummel personally offered an apology for the oversight involving documents containing minor victims' information. Unbelievable. The review of these documents further confirmed the profound lack of legal protection for our most vulnerable citizens: children.
While our relationship with John Hummel began under horrifying circumstances, we have grown to be cordial toward one another. It is with that thought that we must clearly state that he is a poor candidate for the U.S. Attorney position. He does not enforce laws adopted by the citizens of our state, nor protect victims. He clearly stands with criminals, not only on child sex crimes but other crimes as well. This is not an individual who should be appointed to a position that is meant to prosecute criminals or crimes of any caliber on behalf of the State or Federal Government.
Respectfully,
Lauren Russell
That letter didn't change my child's case—it was already resolved by the time I wrote it. But it became part of a public record and eventually part of a legislative conversation because I discovered that the pattern I'd uncovered was bigger than our family.
It usually is.
My advice is simple: Ask questions. Research.
Ask what the legal terms and provisions in charging documents actually mean. Ask what laws and sentencing provisions apply—and which ones don't. Ask what a proposed plea agreement changes. If something doesn't make sense, ask.
You have the right to understand what is happening. You just have to exercise that right.
That case is where my advocacy work started, although I didn't think of it that way at the time. I was simply trying to understand what had happened to my family.
But the questions didn't stop once our case closed.
They turned into public records requests, conversations with legislators, speaking at fundraisers, and sitting at tables with prosecutors and researchers who were asking some of the same questions I was asking.
Over the past decade, that work has grown into a body of advocacy rooted in that same instinct: don't accept an explanation that doesn't hold up, and don't stop asking until it does.
Because sometimes, giving a child the words to speak is only the beginning.
The adults around that child have a responsibility to listen—and then to keep asking questions until the system does what it was created to do.
