States hope to curb domestic murders by targeting choking

More and more states are charging those who choke victims in domestic violence situations with felonies. According to DV advocates and studies, people who choke their"partners" are more likely to go on to kill or seriously injure them in future domestic attacks. The latest states to pass laws targeting DV strangulations are Delaware and New Hampshire. In Delaware, choking a partner carries up to 5 years imprisonment and is always a felony. Delaware state troopers analyzed cases and found that half of choking cases were charges as misdemeanors, eventually leading them to lobby for the strenghtened law.

New Hampshire passed its law after Melissa Cantin Charbonneau, 29, a mother and nurse, was killed by her husband two days after he tried to strangle her. Jonathan Charbonneau, 32, shot and killed her in October. He also shot his father-in-law and then killed himself, a report by the state attorney general found. He was out on $30 bail after being charged with a misdemeanor for throwing her down a flight of stairs and trying to strangle her.

John Cantin, the victim's father, said that his daughter would still be alive if her "husband" had been charged with felony strangulation. "I'm doing this for my daughter. I don't believe this bill will stop the person doing the choking, but at least when it does happen and they are arrested, they are put away."

In New York, Democratic State Sen. Eric Schneiderman introduced a strangulation bill after chairing a commitee that investigated a state senator for domestic abuse. During the hearings, he learned there was no penalty for strangulation, even though women who were choked have a higher risk of being killed by their partner. "I'm just sorry it took us so long in New York state to do this," he says. "I think this will save a lot of lives."

A 2008 study in the Journal of Emergency Medicine found 43% of women who were murdered in domestic assaults and 45% who were victims of attempted murder had been choked in the past year by their male partners.

New York's strangulation bill, passed by its legislature, is on its way to Governor David Patterson's desk.

Proposed Massachusetts law would terminate parental rights of spouse killers

A Massachusetts legislator and a man whose mother was killed by her husband is attempting to pass a law that would automatically terminate parental rights of people convicted of killing their spouses. The law is gaining attention due to the case of a man who allegedly beat and strangled his wife in front of her two children.

Keith Rosiello, a Shrewsbury engineer, [is] facing charges of beating and strangling his wife. Prosecutors say Rosiello left his wife’s battered body on a couch before the eyes of his daughter and 6-year-old son. Rosiello, 45, is asking a judge to clear the way for his kids to visit him behind bars - a bid expected to be challenged by the state Department of Children and Families. Rosiello’s attorney did not return a call seeking comment.

The proposed law, known as Patrick's Law, was proposed by Patrick Holland, whose father is serving life without parole for killing his mother. The then 14 year old Holland fought off an attempt by his murderous dad to reconnect with him. Rep. Peter Koutoujian (D-Waltham) is the legislator who has been trying to pass such a law for the last 6 years.

With eight of 10 domestic violence homicides this year taking place in the home, Koutoujian, a former prosecutor, said: “I’m worried we’re going to have more cases like Patrick’s and more cases like the Rosiello children.”

According to Maureen Gallagher, policy director for Jane Doe, Inc. - The Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual & Domestic Violence, “It is unconscionable to require children to continue unwanted relationships with battering parents who killed their other parent. These children deserve every chance possible to start their life again in a safe environment."

Holland said that his adoptive parents, Ron and Rita Lazisky, taught him what it truly means to be a parent.  “It’s whoever’s in your corner,” he said. “It’s someone who gives you the stable foundation to help you to be your best. I know she wanted the best for me. I’m trying to live up to that.”

Loophole in Oregon DV laws leave victims unprotected after sentence completion

Maxine Bernstein
(AP) — PORTLAND, Ore. - Ten years after she survived a brutal beating by her husband who struck her repeatedly in the head with what police suspect was a crowbar, Erika Belka is scrambling to put together a safety plan.

John Belka, now 52, served seven years in prison for attempted murder, followed by three years parole. Under a plea deal, the state agreed not to bring additional charges involving suspected sexual misconduct with his children.

Parole officers kept close watch on Belka the past three years with stringent conditions: sex-offender treatment and regular polygraph tests; orders to not contact his wife, their seven children, his sister, sister-in-law or any minors; and an electronic bracelet with a GPS system that tracked his whereabouts with directives not to travel to Portland's east side except to see his parole officer.

On Dec. 7, Belka completed his parole, and the conditions, treatments and tracking systems are gone.

Oregon has no other way to protect victims, unlike neighbor Washington state, which offers criminal no-contact orders that can extend after an offender's sentence and parole are completed. And, unlike many states, Oregon places a restriction of six months from the time the violence or a threat occurred to the time the victim can petition for a civil restraining order, unless the person was in jail or out of state.
In Belka's case, neither applies because he's been on parole for three years, living in Portland. His ex-wife would have had to get the restraining order immediately when Belka was released from jail and renew it annually.

"When the supervision ends, it sometimes leaves people out there without any protections," said Kim Hirota, Belka's parole officer. "If I were in her place, I'd be worried right now. There doesn't seem like there's a lot we can do legally for her."

Washington state does have criminal no-contact protection. In fact, it's perhaps the most expansive of any in the nation, said Doug Miles, a former Colorado prosecutor who now is an advisor to the Washington, D.C.-based AEquitas: The Prosecutor's Resource on Violence Against Women. There, judges routinely order domestic violence defendants to have no contact with their victims, usually for the duration of the crime's maximum penalty, even if the person convicted doesn't serve that long.

If Belka had been convicted of attempted murder in Seattle, for example, he'd be ordered to have no contact with his ex-wife the rest of his life because attempted murder carries a maximum of life in prison. If he did contact her, he'd face criminal sanctions, initially a misdemeanor that would rise to a felony after multiple violations.

"The reason we ask for no-contact orders here is because we want to provide every protection for victims that we can," said David Martin, King County senior deputy prosecuting attorney who oversees domestic violence cases. "I think it's pretty basic."

Christine Herrman, a former King County prosecutor who now directs Oregon's Sexual Assault Task Force; Multnomah County domestic violence coordinator Chiquita Rollins; and Rod Underhill, a Multnomah County chief deputy district attorney, all say the Belka case shows a gap in legal protections that Oregon should fix.

Herrman said seeking more protection for victims after defendants have completed their parole is something the Oregon Legislative Alliance to End Violence Against Women will consider in the 2010 special or 2011 regular legislative session. "I do think there's a hole," Herrman said. "I don't think many of us would expect to have the unwelcome surprise of running into our offender, especially after clearly surviving such a horrendous attack."

About 5:30 a.m. April 16, 1999, paramedics found Erika Belka on her back along the driveway of her Northeast Portland home, bleeding heavily. Her husband was shirtless, kneeling beside her, blood on his mouth and arms. Belka told police he suspected his wife interrupted a burglary while she was on the porch praying. The couple were active in New Song Community Church.

Police determined that Erika Belka, who counseled church women, had kept mum about serious problems in her own home. The day before the assault, though, she confided to a friend concerns that her husband had blown her inheritance and wasn't paying the bills, and she learned he hadn't been telling her when her sister called.

Doctors initially said she had a 20 percent chance of survival, with nearly 1,000 skull fractures and bruising on the left side of her brain. The prognosis improved, yet John Belka seemed to keep pressing for a do-not-resuscitate order, police records show. Detectives arrested him June 11, 1999. By January 2000, he pleaded no contest to attempted murder, and the state agreed not to pursue sexual abuse allegations made by his children.

The plea deal meant the state could monitor him heavily during his parole but couldn't register him as a sex offender or alert the public upon his release. A community alert, drafted in 2006 but not publicized, described Belka's method of offending: gains access to minors by placing himself in a position of responsibility over them, has joined religious congregations to gain access to potential victims. "My biggest concern is that because of the plea bargain and how he was charged, the community can't be warned," said his sister, Lynn Siva-Wentzel.

Erika Belka's older sister became her legal guardian the past 10 years and handled her medical and health needs, legal and financial matters. The Belkas' seven children-six of whom they had adopted-were placed in foster care; one was adopted. All but one are now adults.

Erika Belka, now 55, has made a slow but remarkable recovery, lives independently and volunteers. She's had numerous surgeries to relieve pressure in her skull, including one earlier this year. She still has a brain shunt and plates in her head, suffers hearing and vision loss, headaches, seizures, significant short-term memory loss, vertigo and cognitive impairment. Belka, her sister and John's sister recently met with his parole officer to plan for their safety. Police have flagged their addresses. If problems arise, the county's Domestic Violence Reduction Unit is to be alerted.

John Belka says he lives with what he's done. He says he's not going to contact his ex-wife or children and just wants to keep his job of three years, dispatching for a trucking company. He said he wouldn't have minded a no-contact order post parole. "I recognize what I did was wrong. It was evil. I bear all the responsibility, and I own that every single day," he said. "My responsibility is to stay away because I've hurt everybody so bad."

Domestic violence experts and prosecutors say tweaks in the law or new statutes might be warranted. Underhill wasn't aware of Washington's criminal no-contact law but thinks it bears looking at. Defense lawyers, however, may object to post-parole court orders. "I understand the logic behind it, but you have to balance that against someone's constitutional rights," said Jon Martz, a Portland criminal defense lawyer.

Other states also allow longer durations for civil protective orders, including Washington and Colorado, where they may be permanent.Rollins said it might be easier to tweak the existing civil restraining order law in Oregon, adding a clause that would allow domestic violence victims to obtain them within six months of the completion of an offender's parole or probation.

Other states, including Washington and California, can grant permanent civil protective orders. In Oregon, there was a trade-off-making it easier for victims to obtain the civil orders without a hearing at which they'd have to face their offender, while requiring victims to renew them annually.

Belka's parole officer is frustrated. "He had all these conditions, and the people in this situation don't want contact with him," she said. "Now, he's just free to do what he wants." While John Belka's sentence may be up, Erika Belka's will never be lifted. "I think one of the things that hit home to me" Hirota said, "is when she said, 'You know, I'll never be done with this."

Clause prohibiting defense contractors from arbitration in criminal cases is step towards justice for rape victim

A woman victimized while serving as a Iraq contractor testified before Congress last week, stating that arbitration in her rape case involving overseas contractors denies rape and other crime victims justice.

Jamie Lee Jones, then 19, was drugged and raped by seven other contractors and two KBR guards on her fourth day on the job as a Halliburton employee. Because her employment contract said that all disputes must come through binding arbitration instead of through courts, Jones is still waiting for her day in court.

"I didn't even know that I had signed such a clause, but even if I had known, I would never have guessed that it would prevent me from bringing my claims to court after being brutally sexually harassed and assaulted. I had no idea that the clause was part of the contract, what the clause actually meant, or that I would eventually end up in this horrible situation."

That day may come soon, since Senator Al Franken (D-MN), sponsored an amendment which passed Wednesday, October 7, 68 to 30 prohibiting "the Defense Department from contracting with companies that require employees to resolve sexual assault allegations and other claims through arbitration."

According to Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, as many as 30 million employees are under such contracts, which disallow trials by jury in civil - or criminal cases.

An arbitration act passed by Congress, Leahy said, was meant to "provide sophisticated businesses an alternative venue to resolve their disputes" but instead has "become a hammer for corporations to use against their employees."

"There is no rule of law in arbitration," Leahy said. "There are no juries or independent judges in the arbitrations industry. There is no appellate review. There is no transparency. And…[for] Jamie Leigh Jones there is no justice."

JOnes said that "If women before me. if they were able to go before a judge and jury, that would have been public record, and I would have known before I went to Iraq what I was getting into."

Mark de Bernardo, the executive director of the Council for Employment Law Equity defended the use of arbitration as "decisively in the employees' best interests," and as an inexpensive alternative to jury trials.

"[Alternative Dispute Resolution] is an effective tool for both management and employees," de Bernardo said. "The opponents of arbitration have simply not demonstrated that the drastic, sweeping changes they seek to enact are necessary and/or appropriate. To the contrary, for the average employee, the elimination of arbitration will do more harm than good."

Franken clashed with De Bernardo repeatedly, stating that "This took place in Iraq, at that time she had no recourse, sir! She has not had her day in court, she has litigated for four years to have her day in court. She was drugged, she was raped, and she had to have reconstructive surgery. If that's a better workplace, what was the workplace like before?"

This clause will become law when and if the larger defense spending bill is passed by Congress.

Bahamas debate bill criminalizing marital rape

NASSAU, Bahamas — Lawmakers are debating a bill that would make marital rape a crime in the Bahamas, overturning the current system in which consent to sexual intercourse is presumed in a legal marriage.

Legislator Loretta Butler-Turner, who drafted the bill, said the attitude that wives are subordinate to husbands has put some women at risk of violence in the socially conservative archipelago. "There is a constituency of our community that is not protected against rape," she said. "That is the bottom line."

Under current Bahamian law, a man can be charged with raping his wife only if the two are in divorce proceedings or living apart. The bill already has caused debate on radio talk shows, with some islanders saying women could file false rape charges as leverage for alimony, child support or custody. Others have said the bill contradicts traditional Christian values.

Sandra Dean-Patterson, director of a nonprofit group that provides services to victims of abuse, defended the proposal, saying such a law would be an important step forward.

"It says that our nation will no longer condone violence in the family. If you have to force your husband or your wife to be sexual, something is wrong with the relationship," she said.

The government is organizing a series of forums to get comments from the public.
The proposed law would allow a judge to decide the penalty for marital rape. People currently convicted of rape face a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Massachusetts House Bill 1246 seeks to criminalize teacher/student sex - and much, much more

There is a bill in Massachusetts which seeks to criminalize teacher student sex when the teacher seduces a high school student over 16. Supporters of the bill, Massachusetts House Bill 1246, cite a female teacher who only lost her job when having sexual relationships with a minor between 16 and 18. Snce the current AOC is 16, students over 16 are considered fair sexual game.

While ostensibly focused on protecting high school students from predatory teachers, House Bill 1246 does much more than that. It criminalizes sex between social workers, mental health practitioners and clients, and college/university professors and students. Most of these are considered legal adults. The full text of this bill is below:

Section 21A. Any person who is employed by a public or private school or institution of higher learning, the department of youth services, the department of social services, the department of mental health, the department of mental retardation or any private institution providing services to clients of such departments and who in the course of such employment or contract with a pupil or client of such departments or institutions within or outside of any facility thereof or a pupil or client under the direct custodial supervision and control of such person or another person, a pupil or client shall be deemed incapable of consent to sexual relations with such person.

For purposes of this section, sexual relations shall include intentional, inappropriate contact of a sexual nature, including, but not limited to conduct prohibited by section 22 or 24 of chapter 265 or section 2, 3, 35 or 53A of chapter 272.

Brian's Opinion

I believe that while prohibiting sex between social workers and clients or professors and students is admirable, in most cases, these relationships are between two consenting adults. While it can be argued that consent between adults can be coerced, the existing sexual harassment statutes and institutional policies, if enforced, can handle claims among adults.

Washington State legislation closes loophole legalizing sex with 18 year old students

(Original Post 1-24-09)
On January 14, an appellate court stated that because Washington's educator sexual abuse statute stated only sex with minors were criminalized, teachers had a free reign to have sex with their 18 year old students.

State lawmakers, including House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, are outraged.
"There's expectation from parents that when their children go to school, they are protected by adults, because they're students. These are places where they go to learn. Not learn how to have sex. They're going there to learn. We don't expect our teachers to start having sex with them," said Kessler.

Kessler, a Democrat representing the north Olympic Peninsula, is cosponsoring bipartisan legislation to close the loophole. House Bill 1320, which awaits a hearing in the House Public Safety Committee, would allow prosecutors to charge offending teachers and school employees with a Class C felony.

The crime would give a maximum sentence of 5 years imprisonment and registration as a sex offender for teacher student sex when the student is 16 to 21. Sex offender registration is not currently involved when teachers have sex with Washington State students over 16.

(Update 4-22-09) The Washington State House has passed HB 1385 by an 82-16 vote. This bill makes teacher/student sex with victims between 18 and 21 a felony. Rep. Larry Haler, R-Richland, wrote the bill because courts decided that the existing teacher-student sex acts only applied to minors, those under 18.

"It's been a long road but to have this legislation pass the Legislature and sent to the governor's desk is truly one of the highlights of my legislative career. As elected officials, one of our paramount duties is to protect our citizens. Keeping our families, communities and students safe is of the highest priority.

The parents of the Tri-Cities never let me forget for one minute that this was a fight for the safety of their kids," Delvin said. All day, every day they entrust their children to teachers and school employees who have pledged to keep their children safe. Today's legislation makes it crystal clear that all students in Washington state secondary schools are protected from teacher sexual misconduct to age 21, the age limit for secondary school children. I particularly wanted to protect the students with developmental disabilities and this legislation will do it."

(Update 5-19-09) Washington Governor Chris Gregoire signed the bill into law two weeks ago yesterday, or May 4. Besides teachers, janitors and bus drivers caught having sex with students between 16 and 21 will have to register as sex offenders if convicted.

Arkansas judicial comittee approves lifting rape statute of limitations

LITTLE ROCK (AP) — An Arkansas legislative committee has approved eliminating the statute of limitations for certain rape cases that now can only be prosecuted within 15 years of the attack.

The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved the bill by Rep. Dawn Creekmore, D-Hensley, that eliminates the limitations on when prosecutors can file charges on rape cases where DNA evidence has been collected.

Creekmore's bill originally would have removed the statute of limitations for all rape cases, regardless of whether DNA evidence was found. But Creekmore amended the bill to limit it to only cases with DNA after some lawmakers questioned whether it could lead to unfounded accusations from decades ago.

NY seeks to criminalize teacher student sex over the AOC

Due to an incident where a teacher seduced a 17 year old student in Spackenkill, NY, New York State lawmakers are considering a bill that will eliminate the AOC from teacher/high school student sex.

State Sen. Steve Saland, R-Poughkeepsie, said Wednesday[January 28] he will renew the push for passage of a 2007 bill he co-sponsored that would make students legally incapable of consenting to sexual conduct with a school employee.

"It would criminalize what is alleged to have occurred in Spackenkill," said Saland, chairman of the Senate Education Committee.

The renewed local effort to change New York law comes after the Journal Wednesday reported a former Spackenkill High School teacher is being investigated by state education officials for allegedly having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old female student. Depending on the findings by the NY State Education Department, his teaching certificate could be revoked by the state.

Town of Poughkeepsie police and Dutchess County justice officials also investigated the finding, but found 38 year old Leon Almeida committed no crime because New York's AOC is 17. Under New York law, people 21 and older who have sex with minors under 17 can be charged with 3rd degree rape. However, Almeida resigned in November, and depending on the status of his teaching certificate at the end of the school year, Almeida may get his full salary for the 2008-09 year.

If the certificate is suspended or revoked, Almeida won't be paid, but if its still in good standing, he'll be paid $78,000 in salariy and benefits.

Little's bill would amend existing law that covers the conduct of health and mental health care providers. That law makes it illegal for those professionals to engage in sexual conduct with patients during treatment sessions, consultations, interviews and examinations. State law also prevents those who are incarcerated in jails and prisons from giving consent. The law also applies to those in youth homes operated by the state.

The amended bill backed by Saland and others would make students legally unable to consent to sexual conduct with most school district employees. The proposal would cover teachers and other school employees age 18 and over who are more than four years older than the student at the time of the conduct.

The victim's mother said that the loophole in the law making it a regulatory, but not a criminal offense for her daughter to be molested made her angry.

"There is a gap in the law in the state of New York," the mother said.
She said she favors legislative changes such as the one proposed by Saland "so other families don't encounter the same issues we've encountered."

Besides New York, Louisiana and Washington officials are proposing legislation that will make 18 year old students legally off limits.

British extreme porn law goes into effect

Officers will not actively target members of the public to track down those who own violent pornography banned under a new law, police chiefs admitted yesterday.

The law, which comes into effect today, was passed in response to a three-year campaign by the mother of the teacher Jane Longhurst, who was murdered by a man obsessed with hardcore internet pornography.

Its aim, according to the government, is to protect the public from exposure to material which "should have no place in our society", and to tackle demand for such images in order to hit supply. On the internet these come almost exclusively from websites hosted abroad, over which Britain has no jurisdiction.

A Home Office-commissioned review of research into the effects of exposure to extreme pornographic material in 2007 found a correlation between the viewing of violent sexual images and pro-rape attitudes among the men surveyed.

But yesterday the justice ministry said it expected to see a only small number of prosecutions a year under the new law, which carries a maximum sentence of three years in jail and makes it illegal to own pornographic material that depicts necrophilia, bestiality or violence that looks life-threatening or is likely to result in serious injury to the breasts, genitals or anus.

Responsibility for implementing the ban will lie with individual police forces, which will receive no extra funding and will not be expected to devote resources to speculative hunts for people viewing extreme pornography.

The policy is in contrast with the investigation of the use of child pornography. At the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre in London, officers monitor file-sharing websites to try to work out who is accessing illegal material.

A statement from the Association of Chief Police Officers said: "The police will not be actively targeting members of the public but will be conducting investigations into the unlawful possession of this material where found."

The justice ministry expects to see about 30 prosecutions a year. It estimates that 10 offenders will be jailed, for an average of six months. Women's organisations expressed concern that officers would not search for users of the material unless prompted by specific suspicions or other investigations.
Katherine Rake, director of the Fawcett Society, said: "It would make a nonsense of the legislation if there wasn't proactive policing around it."

Sandrine Leveque, of Object, which campaigns against the objectification of women, said: "Many women's organisations see this material as a factor in violence against women. For a law to have any effect there needs to be the feeling that you might be caught breaking it, and if that's not there it does undermine it."

Liz Longhurst believes her daughter Jane might not have been murdered by Graham Coutts had he not had access to extreme pornographic sites. He had been viewing images depicting strangulation and faked murder and rape before he killed the 31-year-old in 2003.

Longhurst, 77, said she had expected that the implementation of the law would lack teeth and resources, but hoped it would eventually lead to tougher policing of violent pornography.
"I think it will have a slight effect, but if it doesn't have a lot of effect it will concentrate the minds of people and possibly they will tighten the law," she said."

Illinois passes new law mandating GPS tracking for protection order violators

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed a measure requiring sattleite tracking of people who violate protection orders. The measure will go into effect January 1, 2009 and is named after Cindy Bischoff, 43. who was killed by her boyfriend Michael Giroux, 60, in March in a murder/suicide.

"This is a way to enforce court orders of protection before it's too late," Blagojevich said.

Giroux twice had been charged with violating orders of protection sought by Bischof, of Arlington Heights. Bischof's family had pressed for passage of the bill after her death.The measure also had the support of Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan.

The measure, effective Jan. 1, will allow courts to require that anyone charged with violating an order of protection be fitted with a GPS monitoring device as a condition of bail. The technology can be used to alert victims when someone comes too close to a location from which they have been banned, such as a victim's home or workplace, authorities say.

A similar law has been used in Massachusetts.

Loophole in Oklahoma rape statutes closed

A rape law loophole in Oklahoma which defines cases where a victim is drunk, unconscious or drugged as second degree rape instead of 1st degree rape has been closed by Oklahoma legislators. Representative Pam Peterson of Tulsa authored the bill to close the loophole after prosecutors in her city had to prosecute rape committed after a victim was drugged as second, not first degree rape. The difference in penalties regarding first degree versus second degree rape can be huge - life in prison versus a fifteen year maximum.

Current law authorizes a first-degree rape charge "where the victim was incapable through mental illness or any other unsoundness of mind, whether temporary or permanent, of giving legal consent."

Tulsa prosecutors used that definition to file a first-degree rape charge against a former nurse who was accused of raping a drugged patient at a Tulsa hospital. But the defendant's defense attorney argued that "unsoundness of mind" does not qualify when an alleged victim is drugged and unconscious. A judge ordered the man bound over for trial on a second-degree rape charge in April, and prosecutors decided not to appeal the ruling.

"I think it was an oversight in state law," Peterson said.

In a similar case in Coyle, a teenage girl recently attended a party and was given a drink she now believes contained a "date rape" drug. After passing out, the girl says she was raped and woke up with six men in the room. The only person charged in the case, a 24-year old Coyle man, is accused of second-degree rape by intoxication.

The new legislation updates state statutes to authorize a first-degree rape charge when the act is "accomplished where the victim is intoxicated by a narcotic or anesthetic agent" or in instances "where the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act and this fact is known to the accused."

Peterson's bill passes with bipartisan support, and she said the new legislation would make convicted rapist pay the full price for what they have done.

"It's encouraging. We can work in a bipartisan way to get good legislation passed. It can be done....This legislation will make it easier to subject rapists to the full punishment allowed under the law."

The bill is expected to be signed by Oklahoma's governor next week.

Britain outlaws "extreme" adult porn

(Originally Posted 5-4-08)
Britain is about to pass an act which will add "extreme porn" to the list of criminalized pornography along with child porn and bestiality. It is scheduled to be a criminal act with a maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment and a place on Britain's Sex Offenders' register. In short, it will create a new class of banned pornography . The British Government expects to prosecute about 30 people a year.

A petition signed by around 50,000 people objecting to extreme internet sites promoting violence against women in the name of sexual gratification was presented to Parliament.

The petition presented to parliament was started by Liz Longhurst after the brutal murder of her daughter. Thirty-one year-old Jane Longhurst, a special needs teacher, was raped and strangled with a pair of tights by a male acquaintance in 2003. Graham Coutts, an amateur musician, attacked her just hours after surfing the web to feed his alleged obsession with necrophilia and asphyxial sex. Coutts stored her naked body for 35 days before trying to burn it in woods. He was convicted in February 2004 and sentenced to a minimum of 30 years in prison.
Coutts' conviction was later overturned and downgraded to manslaughter, but there was a second trial and conviction which ended in resentencing to life without parole eligibility for 26 years last July 4.

The Government said it aims to legislate as soon as Parliamentary time allows. The new offence will apply to England and Wales, and plans are being made to extend it to Northern Ireland. The consultation last August was held jointly with the Scottish Executive which will announce its response in due course.

Many groups are uncomfortable with it because no other Western democracy has banned porn other than child porn, and the depictions scheduled to be banned include simulated acts of violence and degradation. Two of these groups are Backlash UK and See No Evil. Another problem is that many banned porn pictures include legal acts between consenting adults, albeit edgeplay ( a term common in the BDSM community).

Supporters of such a ban state that extreme adult porn and child porn should be treated the same, because of the depictions of degraded and tortured women. This group states that

"Adult porn in its extreme forms should be considered in the same way that child porn is - a record of sexual abuse."

The act with its most recent changes, can be seen here. Britain seeks to pass this law before May 9.

In the most extreme cases, I agree that just like child pornography is the record of a child being abused for someone's sick pleasure, the actual, not simulated rape of a woman is the record of adult sexual abuse. If actual women are raped and tortured, and authorities are able to prove that is the case, then extreme adult porn should be treated exactly the same as child porn, with the same penalties and concern for the victims. If however, the acts are staged, and it's proved that all participants are over 18 and were not harmed, then there should be no criminal prosecution, let along a maximum 3 year jail sentence. People should not be criminalized for images of consensual material among consenting adults.

(Update 5-8-08) Britain has passed the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, which was signed into law (or in British terms, received royal assent.) Article 63 of this legislation deals with extreme porn.

Jane Longhurst, 31, was strangled by Graham Coutts, 39, from Hove, Sussex. He was jailed for at least 26 years.

Her Berkshire mother Liz, backed by Reading West MP Martin Salter, campaigned for three years to ban violent online porn.

The new act is part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.

Possession of sexually violent images will now be punishable by up to three years' in jail.
The bill had its final reading on Thursday - there are seven stages before it is made law - where it received Royal Assent.

Under the new rules, criminal responsibility shifts from the producer - who is responsible under the 1959 Obscene Publications Act (OPA) - to the consumer.

Mrs Longhurst, of Reading, Berkshire, was unavailable for comment but during an interview last October she told the BBC News website: "Some people are utterly against anything that prevents them from doing anything they want.
"What is right for one person is not necessarily for another.

"People can sully the furniture in their mind with this vile filth."

Mr Salter said the campaign was not a "moral crusade" but targeted the "violent end of the market - material that was already illegal but with the advent of the internet was unregulated".

"This is the combination of a three-year campaign waged by Liz Longhurst and myself, which garnered the support of church groups, women's organisations, 189 MPs, and generated 50,000 signatures on a national petition. The campaign involved meetings with two home secretaries, debates in Parliament, even speeches at the Womad Festival in Reading. There was very little opposition to the proposals.

The Royal Assent is a fitting tribute both to our campaign and to the life of Jane Longhurst who was tragically murdered by a self-confessed addict to violent pornography."

Austrailian state toughens rape laws to target those who target impaired adults

The Austrailian state of New South Wales is revising its sexual assault statutes to make it easier for prosecution of sexual abusers of developmentally disabled and other cognitively impaired people. The rate of sexual abuse for this group ranges from 50% to 90%.

Mr Hatzistergos said the term "cognitively impaired" would replace "intellectually disabled" to bring stroke victims, people suffering from alzheimers and the victims of brain injury under the protection of the law.

They are the latest sweeping reforms to the state's sexual assault laws following recommendations from prosecutors, police and health workers on the Government's Sexual Assault Task Force report.

"Taking advantage of a cognitively impaired person for sexual gratification is despicable," Mr Hatzistergos said.

"With the introduction of these laws we are protecting a broader group of disabled people who are vulnerable to the vile predators who prey on them."

Studies have revealed that assaults against intellectually disabled people are severe and ongoing because the victims are not taken seriously or are unable to communicate the problem.

Often the abuse remains hidden by residential care homes, the Task Force report said.

Sexual assault expert Julie Blyth said these victims were more vulnerable because their abusers believed they either would not or could not report them.

"You do not think of these people being targets but it is important for people to realise that offenders target vulnerability. It is about power," said Ms Blyth, of the Northern Sydney Sexual Assault Service.

The penalty for sexual abuse of a cognitively impared person is 10 years for a carer and 8 years for others. There have been only 21 pro secutions of such cases in New South Wales between 2000 and 2005. Rape crisis personnel have worried that cognitively impaired people would not stand up to cross examination.

Upskirting soon to be illegal in Oklahoma

In Oklahoma, upskirting is currently legal because of a case where a man sucessfully got his voyeurism case dropped because courts said that a woman did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy from Peeping Toms. Videotaping kids is illegal.

In the criminal case, a 34-year-old man was arrested in 2006 for placing a camera underneath the girl's skirt at a Tulsa store and taking photographs. He was charged under a "Peeping Tom" statute that requires the victim to be "in a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy."

A Tulsa County judge dismissed the charge in January 2007 after ruling that "the person photographed was not in a place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy." The decision was upheld this week by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. Appellate court Judge Gary Lumpkin dissented from the court's 4-1 decision, writing that "what this decision does is state to women who desire to wear dresses that there is no expectation of privacy as to what they have covered with their dress." "In other words, it is open season for peeping Toms in public places who want to look under a woman's dress," Lumpkin wrote.

State representative Pam Peterson, R-Tulsa, has written a bill which makes it a misdemeanor to video tape a person's private areas,"regardless of whether the person is in a public or private place." Penalties range up to a year in jail and a $5000 fine.

In Illinois, videotaping of both kids and adults was made a felony as of January 1st, and a Chicago Tribune report dated December 26, 2007 showed that damage to victims from the videotaping and distribution on the Internet was widespread.

For those who are interested, the Oklahoma bill to outlaw peeping with cameras is HB 2606. Unfortunately, unlike other states, the maximum penalty is a misdemeanor.