Report on Historical and Contemporary Gender-Based Violence in Alaska in the Context of Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction: A Persistent Challenge to Sustainable Development

Alaska’s high rates of violence against women represent a significant impediment to achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). Statistical evidence underscores the severity of this issue. The 2020 Alaska Victimization Survey (AVS) conducted by the University of Alaska Anchorage Justice Center revealed that 57.7% of adult female respondents had experienced intimate partner violence, sexual assault, or both. This report examines historical anecdotal evidence to contextualize the current crisis, assessing the systemic failures that have historically undermined the safety, well-being, and equality of women in the region.

2.0 Historical Patterns of Violence and Institutional Failures

While comprehensive historical crime statistics are unavailable, a substantial body of anecdotal evidence indicates that violence against women is a long-standing issue in Alaska, reflecting a historical failure to advance SDG 5.2 (Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls).

2.1 Domestic Violence and Lack of Legal Recourse

Historical accounts illustrate a societal normalization of domestic violence and a lack of protective institutions, directly contravening the principles of SDG 16.3 (Promote the rule of law and ensure equal access to justice for all).

• The “Spenard Divorce”: This local idiom from the mid-20th century referred to women killing their abusive husbands. It originated from actual cases, such as that of Regina Bowker in 1959, who murdered her husband after enduring severe abuse and threats. The term’s colloquial nature highlights a societal failure to provide safe and legal escape routes from domestic abuse, forcing women to resort to extreme measures.
• 1954 Kenai Incident: A woman who fired a revolver in self-defense after her husband publicly beat her was charged by Territorial Police for discharging a firearm, while her husband faced no consequences. This case exemplifies an institutional bias that fails to protect victims and ensure equal justice.
• Self-Defense Measures: Anecdotes from 1940s Anchorage describe women using long hatpins for self-defense, indicating a perceived need for personal protection in the absence of reliable institutional safeguards.

2.2 Failures of the Justice System

Numerous historical cases demonstrate the failure of the justice system to hold perpetrators accountable, undermining public trust in institutions and hindering progress toward SDG 16.

1. Charles Cannon (1955): A celebrated musher who confessed to killing his wife, yet a grand jury declined to indict him.
2. Zelda King (1936): A schoolteacher whose death was ruled a suicide despite suspicious circumstances implicating her husband, who was never charged.
3. Muriel Pfeil (1975): Victim of a car bombing in Anchorage, a case for which no one was ever charged.

3.0 Case Study: Violence Against Vulnerable Populations and Economic Insecurity

The 1923 double murder of Hilda Weiss and Luella Boadway in Juneau provides a stark illustration of the vulnerabilities faced by women in precarious employment, a key concern related to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality).

3.1 The Victims and Their Context

Weiss and Boadway were sex workers operating a cigar shop as a front during the Prohibition era. Their profession placed them in a marginalized position, increasing their vulnerability to violence. This reflects challenges related to SDG 8.8 (Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers), especially for those in informal or stigmatized sectors.

• The media coverage at the time, which emphasized their status as “Women of Under World,” served to contextualize, and implicitly rationalize, the violence committed against them.
• Sex workers were frequent targets of violence, as evidenced by a pattern of murders across territorial Alaska, including:
  • Alice Harp (Fairbanks, 1915)
  • Babe Brown (Douglas, 1916)
  • Rose Selberg (McCarthy, 1918)
  • Myra Schmidt (Juneau, 1919)
  • Marie Lavor (Anchorage, 1919)

3.2 The Crime and Investigation

On September 23, 1923, Weiss and Boadway were beaten, shot, and robbed in their rooms. The perpetrator, Harry “Battling” Johnson, was quickly identified based on overwhelming evidence.

1. Evidence: Johnson had recently purchased a revolver, was seen near the crime scene, and was found with blood on his shoes and money identified as belonging to the victims.
2. Conviction: Johnson pleaded guilty to second-degree murder to avoid the death penalty and was sentenced to two concurrent life sentences.
3. Lack of Remorse: Johnson showed no remorse, repeatedly stating he was “ashamed of nothing” and “lucky not to get the rope,” highlighting a profound disregard for his victims’ lives and the failure of the justice system to foster rehabilitation.

4.0 Conclusion: Aligning Alaska’s Future with Global Development Goals

The historical record indicates that the dangerous environment for women in Alaska is not a recent phenomenon but a deep-seated issue rooted in systemic institutional failures and societal norms. The persistent violence directly obstructs the achievement of SDG 5 (Gender Equality) by denying women their fundamental right to safety and security. Furthermore, the repeated failures of the justice system to protect victims and hold perpetrators accountable represent a significant challenge to fulfilling the vision of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

The forthcoming Alaska Victimization Survey will provide critical data for monitoring progress. However, achieving a sustainable and equitable future requires more than data; it demands a concerted effort to dismantle the structures that perpetuate gender-based violence, strengthen legal and social protections for all women, and ensure that Alaska’s institutions are just, accountable, and effective.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article primarily addresses issues related to two Sustainable Development Goals:

• SDG 5: Gender Equality – The central theme of the article is the pervasive and historical violence against women in Alaska, including intimate partner violence, sexual assault, and murder. It highlights the systemic nature of this violence, making gender equality a core issue. The article explicitly states that “Alaska is one of the most dangerous states in the union for women, with high rates of abuse, rape and murder by men.”
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions – The article provides numerous historical and anecdotal examples of the justice system’s failure to protect women and hold perpetrators accountable. This points to weaknesses in legal and judicial institutions, which is a key concern of SDG 16. Examples include grand juries refusing to indict confessed murderers and victims of abuse being punished for self-defense, demonstrating a lack of equal access to justice.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s content, the following specific targets can be identified:

1. Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation.
   • Explanation: This target is directly addressed by the article’s main focus. The text opens with a statistic from the 2020 Alaska Victimization Survey (AVS), stating that “57.7% of female respondents reported experience with intimate partner violence, sexual assaults or both.” It also details the murders of numerous women, including sex workers like Hilda Weiss and Luella Boadway, which falls under eliminating violence and exploitation.
2. Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.
   • Explanation: The article is replete with accounts of murder and violence. It discusses the “high rates of abuse, rape and murder” and lists numerous cases of women being killed, from the well-known crimes of serial killer Robert Hansen to the historical murders of Marie Lavor, Myra Schmidt, and others. This directly relates to the goal of reducing violence and death rates.
3. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and local levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
   • Explanation: The article illustrates a historical and systemic failure of the justice system to provide equal access to justice for women. It cites the case of Charles Cannon, who “killed his wife in 1955, confessed and reenacted the crime,” yet a grand jury declined to indict him. Another example is the unnamed Kenai woman in 1954 who was beaten by her husband but was the only one cited by police—for defending herself. These examples show that the rule of law was not applied equally and that justice was inaccessible for female victims of violence.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions or implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• Indicator for Target 5.2: Prevalence of intimate partner violence and sexual assault.
  • Explanation: The article explicitly cites data from the “2020… Alaska Victimization Survey, or AVS,” which found that “57.7% of female respondents reported experience with intimate partner violence, sexual assaults or both.” This statistic serves as a direct indicator of the prevalence of violence against women, aligning with official SDG indicators like 5.2.1 (Proportion of ever-partnered women subjected to intimate partner violence). The article concludes by mentioning that a “new Alaska Victimization Survey is planned,” highlighting its role as a key tool for measuring progress.
• Indicator for Target 16.1: Homicide rates, specifically femicide.
  • Explanation: The article discusses the “high rates of… murder by men” and the “murders of women, so many murders.” While it laments the lack of “reliable historical Alaska crime rates,” the very discussion of murder rates as a measure of danger for women implies this is a key indicator. The numerous named victims of homicide throughout the article underscore the importance of tracking intentional deaths as a measure of violence.
• Implied Indicator for Target 16.3: Rate of conviction for violent crimes against women.
  • Explanation: The article does not provide a specific statistic but strongly implies this indicator through its many examples of failed justice. The cases where “no one was ever charged” (Muriel Pfeil), a grand jury “declined to indict” a confessed killer (Charles Cannon), or a death was “ruled a suicide” under suspicious circumstances (Zelda King) all point to a low rate of legal accountability for perpetrators. Measuring the proportion of reported violent crimes against women that result in a conviction would be a direct way to track progress on ensuring access to justice.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: adn.com