Anonymous wrote:Charles Allen: pro sexual assault.

He kind of his - he argues with judges that they shouldn't take the type of crime or lasting impact on victim (including rape and child rape) into consideration when deciding on early release for under 26 convicts. Only the behavior in custody. He really is a piece of work .

What happened to society where some people are just given a pass these days to act crazy and instead of upping the sentence we make it easier for them commit crime and know they will face less punishment. It’s the same with schools and making them easier. We now require kids to “show they can get to the answer” in math rather just answer the question. Or speeding. We used to take away a license if a person had thousands of dollars of tickets from speeding. Now dc doesn’t just lets that happen. So stupid.

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

The RCCA does not decriminalize or downgrade carjacking. It moves it under the robbery statute, which is consistent with practice in the majority of the states. Carjacking is a serious felony under the RCCA and the top end of the punishment range is higher than about 98 percent of prior carjacking sentences in the District over the last decade. In short, despite the change to the code, people convicted of carjacking will still face serious penalties akin to what they face now.

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.

Yeah, I'm not totally sure I understand the USAO's interpretation of this change. Looking at the citation above, the RCCA defines "sexual act" as:

(118) “Sexual act” means:

(A) Penetration, however slight, of the anus or vulva of any person by a penis;
(B) Contact between the mouth of any person and another person’s penis, vulva, or anus;
(C) Penetration, however slight, of the anus or vulva of any person by any body part or by any object, with the desire to sexually abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, arouse, or gratify any person, or at the direction of someone with such a desire; or
(D) Conduct described in subparagraphs (A)-(C) of this paragraph between a person and an animal.

Seems like the hypothetical above is clearly included under the new RCCA language.

(118) doesn't include grabbing unless you believe that grabbing is a form of penetration. Hint: it isn't.

Grabbing someone would potentially fall under the assault statute, depending on the conduct. And there are separate penalties for assault. In order for it to qualify as sexual in nature, there are different criteria outlined above. Intent absolutely matters in the law and that is up the DA to prove in a court of law.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles Allen: pro sexual assault.

But why?! I get why it's politically expedient to reduce prison sentences for non-violent drug offenses, etc. But why pander to serious sex offenders?

It is quite disturbing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allen will be at the ANC6A meeting next Thursday, Sept. 8. The link to join the Zoom meeting will be posted to ANC6A.org/agendas. He needs to hear what everyone has to say, because right now he clearly doesn't care.

We need someone willing to run against him as a write in.

This. A recall attempt would be unsuccessful but might rattle his cage a bit.

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.

Yeah, I'm not totally sure I understand the USAO's interpretation of this change. Looking at the citation above, the RCCA defines "sexual act" as:

(118) “Sexual act” means:

(A) Penetration, however slight, of the anus or vulva of any person by a penis;
(B) Contact between the mouth of any person and another person’s penis, vulva, or anus;
(C) Penetration, however slight, of the anus or vulva of any person by any body part or by any object, with the desire to sexually abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, arouse, or gratify any person, or at the direction of someone with such a desire; or
(D) Conduct described in subparagraphs (A)-(C) of this paragraph between a person and an animal.

Seems like the hypothetical above is clearly included under the new RCCA language.

(118) doesn't include grabbing unless you believe that grabbing is a form of penetration. Hint: it isn't.

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.

Nope.

Brilliant retort. Isn't there a sandbox you can play in while the adults talk?

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.

Nope.

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.

Yeah, I'm not totally sure I understand the USAO's interpretation of this change. Looking at the citation above, the RCCA defines "sexual act" as:

(118) “Sexual act” means:

(A) Penetration, however slight, of the anus or vulva of any person by a penis;
(B) Contact between the mouth of any person and another person’s penis, vulva, or anus;
(C) Penetration, however slight, of the anus or vulva of any person by any body part or by any object, with the desire to sexually abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, arouse, or gratify any person, or at the direction of someone with such a desire; or
(D) Conduct described in subparagraphs (A)-(C) of this paragraph between a person and an animal.

Seems like the hypothetical above is clearly included under the new RCCA language.

Anonymous wrote:Charles Allen: pro sexual assault.

But why?! I get why it's politically expedient to reduce prison sentences for non-violent drug offenses, etc. But why pander to serious sex offenders?

Charles Allen: pro sexual assault.

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.

Also, what sicko would propose to make it easier to commit statutory rape:


The RCCA proposes departing from long-standing District law that mistake of age is not a legal defense to child sexual abuse,[3] and creating an affirmative defense to felony child sexual abuse where: (1) the victim is 14 or 15 years old (or 16 or 17, in the case of sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust or authority); (2) the defendant reasonably believes the victim is 16 or older (or 18 or older, in the case of sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust or authority); and (3) the reasonable belief is based on an oral or written statement that the victim made to the defendant about the victim’s age. See RCCA § 22A-2302(g)(2)-(3). For less severe forms of child sexual abuse, the government would be required to prove, as an element, that the defendant was reckless as to the victim’s age. See RCCA § 22A-2304(a)(1)(A) (Sexually suggestive conduct with a minor); RCCA § 22A-2305(a)(2)(A) (Enticing a minor into sexual conduct); RCCA § 22A-2306(a)(2) (Arranging for sexual conduct with a minor or person incapable of consenting).

However, because this defense would allow for the introduction of evidence regarding the defendant’s objectively “reasonable belief” as to the age of the victim, the existence of this defense could, practically, create a legally sanctioned justification for the defense to introduce evidence that would otherwise have no probative value at trial. For example, to show an objectively “reasonable belief,” the defendant may seek to elicit testimony relating to the child victim’s appearance, including the child victim’s physical development, maturity, and clothing, or photos of how the child victim presents themselves on social media. This testimony would be elicited to show why the victim appeared to be older than the victim’s true age. Allowing evidence of the defendant’s “reasonable belief” would allow this type of demeaning and humiliating evidence to be deemed probative and, thus, admissible at trial. If this proposal goes into effect, a defendant may also seek to introduce evidence currently precluded by the Rape Shield Law[4] regarding the victim’s prior sexual behavior to validate their “reasonable belief” that the child victim was of consenting age. Such evidence could include, for example, the victim’s known history of engaging in sexual acts with adults, prior pregnancies or births, involvement in prostitution and/or other sexually related behavior of an adult nature that suggested to the defendant that the victim was of a legally mature age. This evidence is the exact type that exposes the extremely intimate life of the victim (and here, a child victim) that the Rape Shield Law was specifically designed to exclude except in the most unusual cases where the probative value of the evidence is precisely demonstrated. We account for compelling fact patterns in exercising our charging discretion, where—despite the strict liability for this offense—a person may have reasonably believed that the victim was not underage. Allowing for this legal defense, however, may permit the defendant to elicit evidence at trial in a manner that is inappropriate, unnecessarily humiliating for the sexual assault victim, and directly contrary to the compelling policy reasons behind the Rape Shield Law.[5]