The Honolulu Prosecutor’s Safe House is a product of many years of experience in the prosecution of domestic violence cases.

The biggest obstacle in holding abusers accountable for their violence against victims is the threat to safety imposed upon the victim/witnesses. Victims, after reporting the abuse, may recant and not cooperate in the prosecution because they may still be living with their abuser and are threatened to not testify, or they may have nowhere else to go because they may not have the economic resources to escape the violent environment.

Victims’ lack of cooperation would usually result in the abuser not being held accountable for his actions. Justice requires that anyone harming another person must be held accountable for that harm.

The prosecutor’s Safe House offers the victims an opportunity to escape the environment of violence and danger. Until the victims feel safe, all the services that are offered will be meaningless to them. It is in the best interest of victims that the abusers are dealt with.

The criticisms of the rules of the Safe House come from people who have no understanding of safety and security. Their focus is only on the rehabilitation of victims. However, rehabilitation cannot be achieved when the source of danger is not addressed.

Victims cannot possess a cell phone until after they testify at trial because abusers or their friends will try to contact them to influence them to not testify. Victims must be escorted when leaving the property so that they will be safe and not be harmed. The rules are there to ensure the safety of the victims.

Victims’ testimonies are not coerced because prior to offering the victims the safe house option, they have already made statements to the police regarding the abuse. Victims’ participation in the safe house program is voluntary, and they may leave at any time they choose. Opponents of the safe house do not value the safety issue as I do because they see it from an academic perspective. Prosecutors and police must deal with the realities of the danger victims of domestic violence face on a daily basis.

Three university professors, David Johnson, Meda Chesney-Lind and Nicholas Chagnon, have criticized my approach to prosecution by saying that I prefer convictions and harsh punishment over justice (“Prosecutor’s restrictive ‘Safe House’ no way to help victims,” Star-Advertiser, Island Voices, April 10). They failed to point out that I was the one who brought Drug Court to Hawaii where offenders who complete drug treatment would have their charges dismissed. In this program, addressing drug addiction instead of drug convictions would make the community safer.

And yes, I did oppose the Justice Reinvestment Initiative because it was a program mainly to seek the releasing of inmates from prison because of overcrowded prison conditions. My opposition to this program resulted from my concern that the public’s safety was not being considered.

For the same reason, I opposed the HOPE program. Many offenders were placed on probation when they should have been incarcerated. There were at least five murders committed by offenders who were in the HOPE program, and many of the probationers violated their conditions of probation nine to 12 times but would not have their probation revoked and sent to prison. In the last two police shootings, the offenders who threatened the lives of police officers and were killed as a result were in the HOPE program.

My job as the city’s prosecuting attorney is to promote public safety. I will continue to oppose programs that jeopardize public safety and to support programs that provide for public safety like the Prosecutor’s Safe House.

Keith M. Kaneshiro is Honolulu’s prosecuting attorney.