Reply to WaPo editorial board: people are scared of crime

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "WaPo editorial board: people are scared of crime"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]Meanwhile, the D.C. Council, and particularly the committee on the judiciary and public safety, headed by council member Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), must do its own soul-searching. The council has enacted measures — such as halting police hiring and abolishing school resource officers — and employed rhetoric that made police feel like they were the enemy, making law enforcement’s job harder and the city less safe. For example, the council barred police officers from reviewing their body-cam footage before writing their reports, which has made it more difficult to prosecute cases, as the D.C. U.S. attorney’s office predicted would happen when it recommended against the policy. Gun cases have been most impacted.

[b]The council is now considering an overhaul of the city’s criminal code, which includes controversial proposals to eliminate carjacking as a separate crime and to reduce penalties for armed robbery and other infractions. It would also expand the Second Look Act, which allows younger people convicted of any offense to petition for a sentence reduction after serving 15 years. The expansion would allow convicts of all ages to petition for a sentence reduction.[/b][/quote]

Absolutely insane.  [/quote]

Not to mention, the DC crime reform bill would essentially allow free butt grabbing the next time you're on a crowded metro:

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.[b] 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. [/b]The government, however, would be able to show that, at a minimum, the defendant intended to humiliate, degrade, or harass the victim.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics