Has Charles Allen commented recently on the criminal code re-write?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What they really need to do is the ban the assaults rifles / hunting guns, then go door to door and melt them all down.

So-called assault rifles are already banned in the District, and the vast, vast majority of crimes are committed with pistols, but you knew that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will probably be voted on after the election and will likely keep it quiet until then.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/us-attorneys-office-testifies-hearing-revised-criminal-code-act-2021

Glad you posted this. I’m no fan of the USAO and they and their plea deals and under-charging have a lot to answer to this city for, but their testimony on this should be read by all DC residents. Much of what the Council is proposing to do here is straight up bananas.

How so? What are some of the changes in the rewrite that you think are bananas?

As disturbing as it sounds, some of the "reforms" are basically pro-rape and pro-sexual assault:


The RCCA proposes adding the modifier “sexually” to certain conduct before it can constitute a “sexual act” or “sexual contact,” such that certain behavior would only constitute a sexual offense if the defendant has a “sexual” intent. See RCCA §§ 22A-101(118)(c), 22A-101(119)(B)(ii).[6]

However, adding the modifier “sexually” would constitute an ill-advised change from current law, as it would unduly limit situations where the defendant’s conduct should qualify as a sexual act or sexual contact. Sexual violence can be about power and control, not sex or sexual gratification. When committing a sexual offense, a defendant may be motivated by a desire to be violent or to assert power over a victim, not necessarily to be sexually aroused. For example, if, at a fraternity or sorority hazing, a defendant publicly penetrated another person with an object, the defendant may not have been acting with a sexual desire, but may have been acting with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade the victim. This would and should constitute a sexual offense. Further, even where a victim clearly experiences a sexual violation, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to prove that a defendant committed the offense for a sexual reason. For example, if a defendant grabs the vagina, breast, or buttocks of a stranger, that victim likely will feel sexually violated, and the conduct should constitute a sexual offense. Absent evidence of the defendant having an erection or outwardly manifesting sexual pleasure through words or actions—which is rare in many cases, particularly those involving sudden, brief, sexual assaults of strangers—the government may not be able to prove that the defendant’s actions were sexually arousing or gratifying. The government, however, would be able to show that, at a minimum, the defendant intended to humiliate, degrade, or harass the victim.

So basically if you get grabbed on the Metro you now have to prove the pervert was hiding a boner under his trenchcoat or else it doesn't count.

Because every butt grabber on metro claims it was an accident and the woman is just persecuting him for an accident. Since Charles Allen wants to reduce arrests they are going to make the prosecutor prove the grab was sexual. Also gives the police another excuse to ignore your complaint because "welp, he said it happened due to a sudden stop, sorry!"

[Anonymous]

Last time he was on the Politics Hour, he smugly claimed that carjackings are just "armed robberies" when defending his re-write of the DC code which eliminates the term "carjacking" and classifies it armed robbery. This also reduces the punishment by half.

https://wamu.org/story/22/03/11/the-politics-hour-march-11-2022/

Listen at 19:00

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Last time he was on the Politics Hour, he smugly claimed that carjackings are just "armed robberies" when defending his re-write of the DC code which eliminates the term "carjacking" and classifies it armed robbery. This also reduces the punishment by half.

https://wamu.org/story/22/03/11/the-politics-hour-march-11-2022/

Listen at 19:00

Carjackings are, by definition, armed robbery. And, a substantial number of states categorize them that way in their criminal code. It has nothing to do with the severity of punishment. It is about modernizing a century-old criminal code and outlining the characteristics of a carjacking offense in statute versus the current system based on prior case law and precedent.

As noted above, the statutory max under the revised criminal code is longer than 95+ percent of current sentences for carjacking. It does not reduce the punishment by half or anything close to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will probably be voted on after the election and will likely keep it quiet until then.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/us-attorneys-office-testifies-hearing-revised-criminal-code-act-2021

Glad you posted this. I’m no fan of the USAO and they and their plea deals and under-charging have a lot to answer to this city for, but their testimony on this should be read by all DC residents. Much of what the Council is proposing to do here is straight up bananas.

How so? What are some of the changes in the rewrite that you think are bananas?

As disturbing as it sounds, some of the "reforms" are basically pro-rape and pro-sexual assault:


The RCCA proposes adding the modifier “sexually” to certain conduct before it can constitute a “sexual act” or “sexual contact,” such that certain behavior would only constitute a sexual offense if the defendant has a “sexual” intent. See RCCA §§ 22A-101(118)(c), 22A-101(119)(B)(ii).[6]

However, adding the modifier “sexually” would constitute an ill-advised change from current law, as it would unduly limit situations where the defendant’s conduct should qualify as a sexual act or sexual contact. Sexual violence can be about power and control, not sex or sexual gratification. When committing a sexual offense, a defendant may be motivated by a desire to be violent or to assert power over a victim, not necessarily to be sexually aroused. For example, if, at a fraternity or sorority hazing, a defendant publicly penetrated another person with an object, the defendant may not have been acting with a sexual desire, but may have been acting with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade the victim. This would and should constitute a sexual offense. Further, even where a victim clearly experiences a sexual violation, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to prove that a defendant committed the offense for a sexual reason. For example, if a defendant grabs the vagina, breast, or buttocks of a stranger, that victim likely will feel sexually violated, and the conduct should constitute a sexual offense. Absent evidence of the defendant having an erection or outwardly manifesting sexual pleasure through words or actions—which is rare in many cases, particularly those involving sudden, brief, sexual assaults of strangers—the government may not be able to prove that the defendant’s actions were sexually arousing or gratifying. The government, however, would be able to show that, at a minimum, the defendant intended to humiliate, degrade, or harass the victim.

So basically if you get grabbed on the Metro you now have to prove the pervert was hiding a boner under his trenchcoat or else it doesn't count.

Because every butt grabber on metro claims it was an accident and the woman is just persecuting him for an accident. Since Charles Allen wants to reduce arrests they are going to make the prosecutor prove the grab was sexual. Also gives the police another excuse to ignore your complaint because "welp, he said it happened due to a sudden stop, sorry!"

Again, why are they trying to make it basically impossible to prosecute butt grabbers on the metro?!

Fine, decriminalize marijuana offenses all you want....

But what is even the political rationale for making life easier for perverts and sex offenders?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is disgusting. I had heard they were decriminalizing carjacking (or "downgrading") but this is even worse.

Just insane. He (and everyone) knows that armed carjacking is dramatically more dangerous than armed robbery, both for the victim and society (i.e., the future victims). Why can’t he be honest about what he’s doing and why he’s doing it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is disgusting. I had heard they were decriminalizing carjacking (or "downgrading") but this is even worse.

Just insane. He (and everyone) knows that armed carjacking is dramatically more dangerous than armed robbery, both for the victim and society (i.e., the future victims). Why can’t he be honest about what he’s doing and why he’s doing it?

The media needs to start asking these exact questions of CM Allen