Bills to mandate prison for sexually assaulting unconscious victims, redefine rape clear committee

[alp227]

Source: San Jose Mercury News

SACRAMENTO -- Politicians are often criticized for rushing to change laws after high-profile crimes because they can wind up creating bad public policy with messy, unintended consequences.

But national outrage over the light punishment former student-athlete Brock Turner recently received for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman last year outside a Stanford frat party revealed an inconsistency that took California lawmakers by surprise: Sexually assaulting a conscious person is considered a more severe crime in the Golden State than attacking an unconscious person. On Tuesday, the Senate Public Safety Committee unanimously moved to eliminate that seeming absurdity.

"I'm often shy to support changes in statute because of a particular incident," said Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco. But he said this case was different because he had "no idea" the state's penal code made such distinctions and was "new to all of it."

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_30066873/brock-turner-case-bill-mandate-prison-sexually-assaulting

[passiveporcupine]

1. It doesn't matter if you are awake or unconscious

He could have impregnated her, or he could have given her HIV or another std, like Herpes.

It shouldn't matter what her condition is. It's wrong to ever assume it's OK to have sex with someone without consent.

I hope this Stanford kid ends up paying for his crime in some way, if only in the public eye. Her life is forever fucked up.

[Igel]

5. Yes, but for that he would have had to have raped her.

"Sexual assault" here wasn't rape as you think of it. He used his fingers, not his penis. Part of the change in the laws would be to define penetration with a foreign object as rape. That's the easy way to make the punishment harsher. It's confusing different things because outrage says the distinction shouldn't be made because if we keep the distinction we have trouble justifying the extent of the outrage. It's a useful distinction but outrage here is more important. There's no evidence that he so much as unzipped his fly. Under the proposed law, you could repeatedly rape a woman and both still be virgins. A typical vaginal exam might well qualify as sex and, if the woman is not fully aware, as rape. In fact, much of the trauma the victim's letter during sentencing refers to was the medical exam hours later which left her feeling violated.

Now, you may rebut by saying that rape doesn't need to mean sexual intercourse, but consider what you wrote. Penetration with a foreign object as rape will pretty much never result in impregnation or HIV and seldom is termed "having sex with." The default assumption is that rape requires penile penetration. "Sexual assault" seems to be synonymous with "rape." That's half of the outrage right there, a misunderstanding by the many based on how the few want to redefine things. English has very few perfect synonyms.

What he did was bad, but my outrage production unit has levels of outrage, not just "on" and "off."

[passiveporcupine]

8. You are correct

I didn't know he only digitally penetrated, until I found a new story about her full letter to the judge and some more info on the case. It was not clearly defined before.

I still consider any kind of penetration against someone's will a crime, even if it's not called rape. It is still a violation of that persons body and can have the same kind of mental impact on someone.

I'm OK with it being called rape. It's still sexual assault to me, and deserves an adequate penalty. And it still has repercussions. Not just from the act itself, but from the aftermath, of medical exams and court cases, if you take it that far.

[cstanleytech]

2. On one hand the sentence Brock got was far to lenient for the crime

but on the other hand I cant say I care for mandatory sentencing being imposed on judges either.

[Eric J in MN]

3. Bingo. No mandatory minimums. NT

NT

[pansypoo53219]

4. more if you defile the victim like peeing or post pics.

[Evergreen Emerald]

6. Mandatory minimums are not a bad thing.

Mandatory minimums were created in Washington State decades ago because when the judge had the ability to sentence from 0 to 20 years, minorities were getting 20 years and white people got six months and probation.

Mandatory minimums was an attempt to fix that disparity in the justice system. It works like this: if you are convicted in WA of an offense, there is a formula, the "class" of offense, plus the amount of criminal history. Mandatory minimums are colored blind. there are flaws that need reworking however, for example, the designation of the offense "class."

Mandatory minimum sentencing was a step in the right direction. I know that race places a role in who gets arrested, charged, and convicted.

Every aspect of the justice system needs overhauling so race is not a factor.

[Akicita]

7. So a guy is planning to leave his wife for another girl. One morning the wife is feeling frisky and

caresses her sleeping husband to get some morning delight like she's done a hundred times before. This time he calls the police and files sex assault charges. The judge understands what is going on but his hands are tied. Because of the new law and because the guy was not conscious and did not give consent, he has to sentence the wife to the mandatory minimum. The guy gets the divorce, the kids, and the girl. The wife gets prison.

Doesn't sound like such a great law to her but the guy is loving it.