How the Stanford Rape Case Changed Sex Crime Laws in California

     admin January 20, 2020 0 Comments  sex crimes sex crimes

The sexual assault case at Stanford University sparked changes in sex crime laws  in California. When Brock Turner received only six months in jail for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman on Stanford’s campus, many viewed his sentence as far too lenient. After all, the crime he had committed was heinous and had caused irreparable damage to the victim, both mentally and physically. The fact that he was given a mere six months in jail seemed to be a slap on the wrist and a far cry from the justice that many felt was deserved. It was a sentence that left many people outraged, feeling as though the perpetrator had gotten off easy. After all, the crime they had committed was one of the most heinous imaginable.

Lawmakers passed two bills in response to the situation at Stanford. While already in effect, bills AB 701 and AB 2888 continue to be debated. Some argue that these bills take a step in the direction of protecting sexual assault victims; others fear that they can be unfair to defendants who are inadequately represented. Proponents of these laws argue that they are necessary to ensure that victims of sexual assault are given the justice they deserve. They point to the fact that sexual assault cases are often complex, and the victims are often in a vulnerable position, making it difficult to come forward and seek justice.  This is especially true when the perpetrator is someone the victim knows, such as a family member, friend, or even a romantic partner. In these cases, the victim may be reluctant to speak out due to feelings of shame, guilt, or fear of retribution. This fear can be especially strong if the perpetrator is someone close to the victim, such as a family member, friend, or romantic partner. Victims may be afraid that if they tell someone, they won’t be believed or taken seriously, or that they will be blamed for the abuse. They may fear that their abuser will become angry or violent if they tell someone, or that their relationship will be judged or criticized.

Here is a closer look at these new sex crime laws in California.

Stanford Rape Case Background

January 18 marks the five-year anniversary of the Standford rape case in 2015. The case and its aftermath is outlined in bullet points below:

• On January 18, 2015, Brock Turner was found on top of Chanel Miller (“Emily Doe” in the official court documents), who was unconscious and intoxicated at the time, behind a dumpster at a Stanford party.
• Turner was indicted on five charges: rape of an intoxicated person; rape of an unconscious person; sexually penetrating an intoxicated woman with a foreign object; and sexually penetrating an unconscious woman with a foreign object, and assault with intent to commit rape.
• The case went to trial a year later in 2016, and Turner was found guilty of three out of five felonies: assault with intent to rape; sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object; and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object.
• On June 2, 2016, Judge Aaron Persky sentenced Turner to six months in the Santa Clara county jail, plus three years of probation.
• Persky’s decision ignited public outrage, saying that the sentence he handed down was too lenient and immensely belittled the seriousness of sexual assault . A petition was started calling for his removal from court.
• The petition garnered over a million signatures by June 10, 2016, only eight days after the sentencing.
• On September 2, 2016, after only three months in jail, Turner was released on account of good behavior.
• In response to this outcry, California State Legislature moved to pass two bills changing state law on rape and sexual assault: Assembly Bill 701 broadened the definition of rape to include digital penetration; and Assembly Bill 2888 enforced a mandatory minimum prison sentence of three years for the sexual assault of an unconscious or intoxicated person.
• Judge Persky was recalled from office on January 24, 2018.

Redefining California Rape Laws

Previous laws in California defined rape as “an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a lack of consent, force, or coercion.” This definition also applied to spousal rape.  Spousal rape is a heinous crime that can have devastating consequences for the victim. It is an act of violence and power, and it is an extreme violation of trust.

However, under the old definition, rape required penile penetration. This phrasing meant the law did not account for traumatic instances of sexual assault if they did not meet the legal requirements for rape.

Previous laws also contained an element that didn’t apply to unconscious victims. While someone who lacks consciousness is unable to give consent, the former definition of rape didn’t speak directly to these situations. That means someone who assaults someone else who is unconscious from intoxication could get away with a lighter sentence.

Assembly Bill 701 looks to broaden the definition of rape. Under this AB 701, all forms of nonconsensual sexual assault could be considered as rape by law. This means that digital penetration or penetration with any foreign object counts as rape, not just penile penetration.

One of the significant benefits of this new definition of rape  is that there are more resources available for survivors. Organizations and programs could now offer assistance to rape victims, without having to debate the semantics of what constituted rape.

With broader definitions of what constitutes a sex crime , more people are able to get medical, legal, psychological, and financial help they need, and a stronger shot at justice and healing.

Under California law, the crime of rape can be charged as a felony or misdemeanor. The severity of the penalty depends on the circumstances of the crime. If the victim was a minor or if serious physical injury was inflicted, the rape is charged as a felony. A felony conviction carries a sentence of up to eight years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. In addition, California law provides for civil liability for the victims of rape. Victims may sue for damaged, including medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

Harsher Sentences

Turner only ended up serving half of his six-month jail sentence, because previous laws allowed sex crime offenders to knock off one month on the sentence for every month of good behavior in jail. This incentive has been proven to be an effective way to encourage inmates to follow the rules and regulations of the prison system. Inmates who demonstrate good behavior can expect to be rewarded with a reduction in their sentence, providing them with a sense of hope and motivation to make positive changes. This reward system is beneficial for both the inmates and society as a whole, as it encourages inmates to take responsibility for their actions and strive to become better people.

The court has decided to offer a reduced sentence of imprisonment to sex crime offenders who demonstrate good behavior while incarcerated, with one month being taken off their sentence for every month of exemplary behavior during their period of imprisonment.

As a direct result of the lenient sentence given to Brock Turner, state legislators passed Assembly Bill 2888, which enforced a mandatory minimum prison sentence of three years for the sexual assault of an unconscious or intoxicated person.

 The bill  also eliminates probation as an option for sex crime offenders who assault unconscious or intoxicated persons. In the past, judges could offer probation as punishment if the victim was intoxicated or unconscious. Many argued that allowing those convicted of sex crimes to get off with probation would discourage other survivors from coming forward.

AB 2888 passed with a unanimous, 66-0 vote.

 Proponents of this bill  wanted to send the message that assaulting someone who is unconscious is a grave offense, one which deserves heavy consequences.

“Touching someone without their consent, especially when they are in a vulnerable state such as unconsciousness, is a serious violation of their rights and dignity, and should be treated as a grave offense with severe repercussions.”

The act of violating someone’s rights and dignity is a serious offense that should be treated with severe repercussions, and anyone found guilty of such an act should be held accountable and face the consequences, which could include being evicted from their house and barred from ever entering it again. This could mean that they would have to find a new place to live, which can be a difficult and expensive process. They would have to find a new place to store their belongings, and they may not have the money to do so.

Working Hand-In-Hand

The passing of AB 701 and AB 2888 work well together. The very concept of rape and other sex crimes has been redefined and made more inclusive. At the same time, those who are convicted of certain sex crimes may not be able to get off on  probation. This is due to the severity of the crime, and the fact that the perpetrator may be considered a danger to the public. In some cases, the court may decide that the individual must serve their full sentence in order to protect the public from further harm. This is often the case when the individual has committed a particularly heinous crime, or has a long criminal history. In such cases, the court may feel that the individual is a danger to society and that the only way to protect the public from further harm is to incarcerate them.

For example, if an individual has committed a violent crime and is deemed to be a danger to society, the court may decide that the only way to protect the public from further harm is to incarcerate them; this is an example of how incarceration can be used to protect the public from those deemed to be a danger to society.

The threat posed by those deemed to be a danger to society is one of the primary reasons for incarceration, as it serves to protect the public from their potential harm and mitigate the risk of further harm from those individuals.

The effects of such protective measures are far-reaching, as they not only serve to protect the public from potential harm, but also to mitigate the risk of further harm from those individuals by reducing the effects of their negative behavior.

Let’s reimagine the original scenario of a college party. The music is loud, drinks are flowing, and people are having a good time. This might be a pretty typical weekend at any university across the country.

If at this party, another man attempts to take advantage of another drunk woman, state laws will now respond very differently.

Under the old California laws , if the man at the party rapes a conscious woman, he will go to prison. But if the man waits until the woman passes out before sexually assaulting her, all he could get was probation.

However, under the new law, if a man rapes a woman – regardless of what body part or object he uses – he would immediately receive a minimum prison sentence of three years. This number could increase based on other circumstances surrounding the assault, but it would not go lower. He would also not have the option of being put on probation.

Objections to the Changes

While both AB 701 and AB 2888 were easily passed, there are still some concerns.
Despite the fact that both AB 701 and AB 2888 were easily passed, there are still some concerns that have been raised about the changes proposed in the articles, such as the potential for increased costs and decreased access to services.

In addition to considering the potential for increased costs and decreased access to services, it is important to evaluate the benefits that may arise from the proposed changes in the articles, including any potential improvements in quality and efficiency of services.

The experiences of those affected by the proposed changes in the articles should be taken into account in order to assess the potential improvements in quality and efficiency of services, as well as any potential negative experiences that may arise.

Some crime victim advocates and associations believe that these laws might disproportionately affect poor and minority defendants who often are unable to hire a sex crimes attorney. The ACLU of California claimed that the bills were well-intentioned, but would create more injustice in an already flawed criminal justice system.

Since judges no longer have discretion, some defendants may end up with harsher sentences than they might get previously, especially if they don’t have the means to hire a reasonable attorney.

While this may seem like a good weapon against guilty parties, it can be problematic for innocent but less-privileged individuals who aren’t adequately represented. Innocent parties may take plea deals for a lesser sentence out of fear that the trial won’t go in their favor.

Faced with the possibility of a lengthy sentence, many defendants may choose to take plea deals for a lesser sentence out of fear that the trial won’t go in their favor, despite having strong defenses and evidence to support their case.

The defendants have done extensive research to ensure that their case is as strong as possible, gathering evidence and finding legal precedents to support their defense, in order to minimize the fear that the trial won’t go in their favor.

Moving Forward

The Stanford Rape Case resulted in a massive, country-wide conversation regarding sexual assault and other sex crimes  . There are still people on both sides of the argument, but legislators agreed that what Brock Turner did should be considered rape and that his punishment should involve more than three months in jail and probation.

Part of the national conversation involving this case has helped more people look at their own past and actions. The hope is that this story and the changes in state laws help to discourage those who seek to take advantage of the intoxicated or unconscious.

The LibertyBell Law Group encourages its clients to study the terms and conditions and privacy policy of the website thoroughly before using it, so that they can make informed decisions and be aware of their rights and obligations.

Characteristics such as the comprehensive privacy policy, detailed sitemap, and the convenient call now button on the LibertyBell Law Group website demonstrate the company’s commitment to providing customers with a secure and user-friendly experience.  The website is designed to be intuitive and easy to navigate, with a modern and attractive design that is sure to make a great first impression. The website is also equipped with the latest security features, such as SSL encryption and two-factor authentication, to ensure that all user data is kept safe and secure. The website also has a dedicated team of security experts who monitor the site 24/7 and are constantly looking for new ways to improve security. 

The team of security experts are constantly on the lookout for any signs of aggression, as they strive to protect the site from malicious activity and ensure that any potential threats are identified and dealt with quickly and effectively.

Despite the best efforts of the security team to protect the site from malicious activity and ensure that any potential threats are identified and dealt with quickly and effectively, there is no excuse for any breach of security that may occur.

While there is no excuse for any breach of security that may occur, it is important to ensure that any potential security threats are identified and dealt with in a timely and effective manner, so that any security lapses can be avoided and any incidents that do occur can be addressed promptly and efficiently.

In order to protect the site from malicious activity, it is important to ensure that any potential threats are identified and dealt with quickly and effectively, paying close attention to the details of the situation in order to ensure that the appropriate measures are taken.

In order to ensure that the appropriate measures are taken, it is important to consider the context of the situation, taking into account all relevant factors such as history, current events, and potential future developments, in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the situation and make informed decisions.

By gathering and analyzing facts, such as current trends, past experiences, and potential future developments, one can gain a comprehensive understanding of the situation and make informed decisions based on the facts presented.

These kinds of crimes can no longer offer lenient sentences. While this may not change the culture that allows rape to happen overnight, these laws, as seen by many, are a step in the right direction. Read more about sex crimes attorneys .