Rape witness law passes CA senate - will make it illegal to witness child rape & stroll off

[Liberal_in_LA]

Senate passes Richmond gang-rape bill

Monday, May 3, 2010

The bill, authored by state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, would require anyone who believes they have witnessed a murder, rape or other sex crime involving a victim younger than 18 to call the police. Currently, the law only requires reporting such crimes against children younger than 14.

In a crime that attracted national attention, a 16-year-old girl was gang raped outside a homecoming dance in October on the Richmond High School campus. A number of people witnessed the crime but did not report it to police.

The bill would make the failure to report the crime a misdemeanor punished by a fine of up to $1,500 or imprisonment of up to 16 months. Richmond community groups as well as law enforcement and crimes victims organizations back the bill.

It now heads to the state Assembly for consideration. If it passes the Assembly, it could be sent to the governor's desk by late spring or early summer, said Adam Keigwin, Yee's chief of staff.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/03/MNPA1D8V9N.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0mux1UZhM

[bluestateguy]

1. I tend to not like these Good Samaritan laws

You could have an illegal immigrant who witnessed a crime and he would then be afraid to report it for fear that the police would then start investigating him. At least, I could see that happening in Arizona.

[Mojeoux]

2. Thank God!

Wish this could be retro-active.

[paulsby]

12. no law should EVER be retro-active

and thankfully our constitution (somewhat) protects us from that.

i say "somewhat" due to administrative and civil provisions that can be retroactive.

but not criminal

[BlooInBloo]

3. As long as they have protections for the witness, like can't sue him/her if something goes wrong...

I've heard stories about that kind of thing.

If you're gonna legally force people do involve themselves, they need to be protected from being blamed if something goes wrong.

But with that caveat, I'm not against such laws.

[depakid]

6. California fixed the problem their Supreme Court created with the previous statute

http://www.bicepp.org/GoodSam.stm

The court's decision raised some eyebrows, as it wasn't in comport with the usual interpretations and assumptions re: the intent of "good samaritan statutes in other states.

The case itself was somewhat disturbing, and one can see the arguments on both sides of the issue:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog/2009/01/californias-goo.html

[BlooInBloo]

8. Very good to hear.

[Auggie]

4. Why isn't this the law for all age groups?

[miscsoc]

11. so they can raise the age limit later

and get some useful media coverage for being tough on crime before the next round of elections

if they did it all at once they couldn't milk the issue for votes in the future

is one theory

[paulsby]

13. in US jurisprudence it is rare for the law to require reporting crimes

let alone assisting people in need (w/certain exceptions)

you could stand on a sidewalk, watch a man bleed to death and not call 911 on your cell phone and face no penalty in most states

just sit there are watch him die for 15 minutes.

legal

[flvegan]

5. Good start. Now make it illegal to witness ANY rape and "stroll off"

[Liberal_in_LA]

7. I guess making adults accountable for reporting crimes against other adults is more controversial.

[BlooInBloo]

9. Definitely more situations to consider with that kind of law...

Imagine a party, 2 drunk people go off to fuck, one of them charges rape the next day, did the witnessing partygoers commit a crime? It's a simple enough matter to construct other "touchy" situations for such a proposed law.

Seems like there's a lot more to consider and get *just* right in the extension to all age groups.

It's simpler when one of the parties is a kid, since there's no concept of "consent" for a kid.

[miscsoc]

10. seems fair enough to me, although it beats me why there would be an age limit at all

what's the logic behind that? apart from the fact that if they didn't have an age limit, the legislators wouldn't be able to remove the pointless restrictions next time they feel the need of a little populist grandstanding.

Anyway, I think it's a good idea on the face of it, although I'm sure there are other details I haven't considered