Punishment of sex crimes against women and minors
A number of bills proposed this session seek to enhance punishment and repercussions for those who commit sex crimes, particularly against women and minors. AB 2888, AB 701 and AB 29: In response to the Stanford University sexual assault case, these bills would implement a mandatory punishment for rape or expand the existing law so that all forms of nonconsensual sexual assault may be considered rape. The latest: AB 2888 moved out of the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee on Tuesday and is awaiting a final vote on the floor. AB 701 was sent to the governor’s desk Wednesday with a 73-0 vote and is expected to be signed. AB 29 was proposed late, and may not clear its legislative hurdles before the session adjourns.
Back story: After a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge sentenced a Stanford University student to six months in jail for sexual assault, public outrage led California lawmakers to call for increasing punishment for such crimes. Both bills are supported by crime victim advocates and some law enforcement groups. The American Civil Liberties Union opposes AB 2888, calling it a hastily drafted reactionary measure. But both bills had overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans in the Assembly.
AB 1276 and AB 1708: Would impose minimum fines and mandatory minimum county jail terms for people convicted of paying for sex and would allow minors ages 15 or younger to testify through closed-circuit televisions outside the courtroom. The latest: AB 1276 is now on Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk awaiting his signature or veto. AB 1708 is awaiting a vote on the Senate floor. Back story: More than 30 bills this session have tried to curb human trafficking through increased penalties for buyers and sellers in the multibillion-dollar industry. AB 1276 and AB 1708 have the support of advocates and some law enforcement agencies that say the legislation would increase accountability for offenders and extend protections for vulnerable victims. But the ACLU, public defenders and other law enforcement agencies contend the laws could erode the constitutional rights of defendants.