Bill Proposes Changes Virginia Rape Law Called Inadequate
Dublin Core
Title
Subject
Description
Creator
Source
Publisher
Date
Rights
Format
Language
Identifier
Coverage
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
- Sexual Assault is the number one crime of violence in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
- Age of the victim ranges from 6 months to 95 years.
- College students form the highest single category of victims.
- In Virginia, a rapist has a 99% chance of being able to commit his crime without receiving any punishment for it whatsoever.
Statistics like these prompted the Fredericksburg Area Rape Information Service (FARIS) to invite Pam McCoach to speak at Mary Washington College last Thursday evening. McCoach, a member of both the Virginia Committee on Sexual Assault Reform and the Virginia States Crime Commission Task Force for rape legislation reform, spoke before a small, predominantly female group, discussing the changes in the Virginia Code dealing with sexual assault.
The piece of legislation that McCoach endorses, formally known as S.B. 291, has already been passed by the Virginia State Senate and is presently being handled by the House Courts Justice Committee, Subcommittee on the Criminal Sexual Assault Bill. If reported favorably on by the Subcommittee and Committee, the Bill will be debated on the floor of the Virginia House of Delegates next month.
McCoach told the gathering that “the present rape laws just are not enough. Victims aren’t reporting it, and Commonwealth Attorneys have difficulty securing convictions.” McCoach hopes that passage of S.B. 291 will solve both of these problems by “increasing the effectiveness of the Commonwealth Attorneys” and “upgrading the role of the victim so that he or she does not have to undergo a second assault, this time in court.”
The Bill, according to McCoach, embodies several concepts. It would shift the emphasis of the sexual assault law from victim resistance to force exerted toward the victim by the assailant. Thus, the focus would no longer rest on the victim’s will or resistance. Mc Coach pointed out that “we do not ask whether the victim of a robbery ‘consented’ to having his or her property taken,” as is embodied in the present legal implications in a rape case. “Furthermore…resistance can be dangerous.”
The Bill codifies all forms of forcible sexual conduct into one statute, treating assaults such as sodomy as seriously as rape in terms of criminal process and conviction. S.B. 291 would replace the simple “rape” category under the law with a graduated scale of severity. “Sexual assault” under the Bill is divided into two major categories: Penetration (defined in the Bill as “vaginal intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, anal intercourse, or any other intrusion, however slight, by any object.”), and Sexual Contact (which is essentially coerced touching or fondling).
Additionally, both categories are divided into two degrees. Second Degree Penetration includes the use of fear or coercion by the assailant to achieve penetration, and covers cases where the victim is mentally retarded or physically helpless. The proposed penalty for a Second Degree Penetration offense would be from five years to life imprisonment. Second Degree Penetration is aggravated to First Degree Penetration if any of the following conditions existed at the time the crime occurred: 1) the victim was under 15 years old, 2) the assault was a “gang rape,” 3) a weapon was used by the assailant, 4) the assailant was a parent of the victim, 5) the victim was confined to a state institution (penal, mental, etc.) and the assailant was an official at that institution or 6) the assault was committed during the commission of another felony. When any of these factors are present, the penalty for a penetration offense may range from five years to life imprisonment.
Similarly broken down, Fourth Degree Contact deals with fondling rather than penetration. Fourth Degree Contact would be increased to Third Degree Contact for the same conditions that would increase Second Degree Penetration to First Degree Penetration. Penalties range from one to five years imprisonment for Fourth Degree Contact and five to twenty for Third Degree Contact.
S.B. 291 is, according to its supporters, sex neutral. Homosexual assault and the assault of a male by a woman would not be distinguished in terms of penalties, from the rape of a female by a male. Further, the Bill deals only with nonconsensual sexual assault; the emphasis is on the violent nature of the crime and on the element of force involved.
The rights of the victims of sexual assault are made explicit in the Bill, which states that “the victim shall be treated with respect at all times”; among other protections, the Bill provides that “the jury shall not be instructed to examine with caution the testimony of the victim solely because of the nature of the crime, nor shall the jury be instructed that such a charge is easy to make but difficult to defend against…”
Along this same line, the Bill would place increased limits on the admissibility of evidence relating to the victim’s sexual history. If S.B. 291 is passed, judges in rape cases would be required to find, in a hearing at which the jury was not present, that this type of evidence is necessary to the case, that is more than inflammatory rhetoric designed to prejudice the jury. The limits of admissibility of evidence must, according to the Bill, serve one of three purposes; first, “to provide and alternative explanation for the presence of semen, pregnancy, disease, trauma, or any other physical evidence of the offense charge”; second, “to support a claim that a victim has an ulterior motive in bringing the charge of sexual assault”; third, “to provide evidence of past sexual conduct between the victim and the defendant” which is necessary to show whether force was used.
S.B. 291 would authorize increased penalties for repeat offenders: an additional five years for the second offense, ten for the third, and an additional sentence of life imprisonment for the fourth offense.
Pam McCoach ended her presentation with an appeal for help. She said that letters to the members of the House Subcommittee of the Criminal Sexual Assault Bill would be most helpful. Those wishing to express an opinion on the Bill should write to any of the following legislators at the General Assembly Building, Richmond, Va 23219: A.L. Philpott, Subcommittee Chairman (Room 607, phone 804-786-6880), Theodore Morrison (Room 702, phone 804-786-6597). Donald McGlothin (Room 711, phone 804-786-6995), Joseph Leafe (Room 705, phone 804-786-6891), Clinton Miller (Room 707, phone 804-786-7298), and Raymond Robrecht (Room 809, phone 804-786-7296).
McCoach urged that it is crucial for the letters and phone calls to reach these legislators as soon as possible.
Original Format
Contributor of the Digital Item
Student Editor of the Digital Item
Files
