Advertisement
“A dream you dream alone is only a dream; a dream you dream together is reality.” — Yoko Ono
Jan
3
Virginia Governor Proposes Rape Law Reform
Filed Under courts, legislation, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls | Posted by Cara |
Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine is preparing to ask the state legislature to toughen sexual assault and domestic abuse laws. Reading over his proposals, I have to give a strong heap of praise to Kaine . . . but as per usual, I am also amazed to find out how completely archaic and insulting the existing laws are. And I read about and write about a lot of rape cases.
“The General Assembly has done a really good job in the last few years focusing on the management of violent sexual offenders,” Kaine said. “What this is about is now turning our attention to being better in how we treat victims of sexual assault and violence and making sure Virginia is doing what we need to do in that area.”
Kaine said he wants to spare people who report being raped from having to take lie detector tests and to require courts to immediately process protective orders in civil abuse cases.
The proposal that could be the most controversial would prevent a man who has sexually assaulted a girl ages 14 to 16 from avoiding prosecution by offering to marry her.
A law allowing such a defense has been on the books for at least five decades, though it is rarely used. An 18-year-old man who has sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend, for example, could be found guilty of sexual assault, and some lawmakers believe the man should have the option of marrying her.
For the first time since Kaine has been governor, control of the legislature will be split between Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in the House of Delegates.
House Republicans have challenged some of Kaine’s legislative priorities in what is expected to be a tight budget year. But Kaine said he does not think the Republican majority will oppose his proposals, though he acknowledged the one involving men who use marriage as a shield against prosecution has been controversial in the past.
Okay, so I can’t claim that I’m shocked — appalled, but not shocked — to hear that Republicans consider violence against women to be such a low priority that they’d actually criticize someone who wants to talk about the issue.
But I can say that I’m shocked about the rest: the law allowing a man to marry an underage girl as a defense against rape??? There aren’t enough question marks or exclamation points for that one. Nor are there enough curse words to explain my sentiments about the fact that repealing this kind of statute is considered “controversial.”
I want to be clear that it’s not because I’m a big fan of the “Romeo & Juliet” statutory rape laws (laws treat a consensual sexual relationship between teenagers close in age as statutory rape). I’m not. A lot of them go too far. Declaring that a sexual relationship between an 18-year-old an a 16-year-old cannot possibly be consensual is utterly illogical. Just as illogical, in fact, as declaring that any other kind of sexual relationship cannot possible be non-consensual.
But the very basis of statutory rape laws is that the younger party, due to age or age difference, is incapable of giving consent. What I find to be horrifying is that someone felt it prudent to create an exception for marriage. And then the law was kept on the books! And worst of all, Republicans are still fighting for it. (Though, aren’t they usually the ones who fight for the most draconian statutory rape laws? Sorry, women as property, I forgot. You can’t rape a man’s daughter until he has already sold her to you).
I can’t believe that we’re still discussing whether or not marriage can negate rape. If you rape someone and then marry her, it doesn’t nullify the rape — in fact, it’s probably just going to provide an excuse for a lot more rape. If a woman is too young to consent to sex, she is too young to consent to marriage. And if she’s too young to consent to sex, being married doesn’t somehow give her age-defying superpowers. Not to mention the dangerous, still prevalent suggestion that once married, a woman’s consent is permanent and guaranteed. I also love the language of a man “offering” to marry the woman he is accused of raping — as though her feelings in the matter are meaningless. Though, of course, the concept that a woman’s feelings, choices and decisions about her own body and life aren’t particularly meaningful is why we have such poor rape laws on the books in the first place.
The other big shocker for me was the provision regarding forced lie detector tests for rape victims. At first I thought that I might just be incredibly out of the loop. But actually, as it turns out, requiring a rape victim to take a lie detector test is against federal law:
Some of the proposals would bring Virginia into compliance with the federal Violence Against Women Act of 2005, which prohibits law enforcement agencies from requiring a victim to take a lie detector test. A 2004 state survey found that more than 70 percent of law enforcement agencies sometimes ask victims to do so. If it does not comply, Virginia will lose about $4.5 million in federal funds.
“This will help prevent the victims from being re-victimized as a result of the investigative process,” Northern said. “That’s the most important thing about this legislation.”
While lie detector tests have been shown to be mostly reliable, they are not allowed as admissible evidence in most courtrooms for a reason. Personally, I don’t like the idea of them being used in rape cases at all. Nervousness — which rape victims recounting their stories while hooked up to wires would generally experience — has been shown to create false lie detections. In terms of the accused rapist, lie detectors are a bad idea because even when they work, they don’t tell us what happened — they tell us what the person taking the test believed happened. And sadly, it’s not at all uncommon for a man who has actually committed rape to truly believe that he has not.
But tangent aside, are the changes being proposed out of a genuine concern for women’s safety and desire to to see justice, or just about money? The skeptic in me isn’t entirely convinced of the altruistic motivation, but that is indeed why the punitive funding measures were designed as part of VAWA: no one expected states to change policy out of the goodness of their hearts. If we could expect that, a national law wouldn’t really be necessary, would it? And though funding for programs helping rape victims is vital, it’s pointless and even potentially harmful to funnel money to programs that are designed to blame women and revictimize.
It’s definitely worth noting that Governor Kaine’s proposals are well-researched:
Kaine’s proposals are based on recommendations from the Governor’s Commission on Sexual Violence, appointed in November 2006 to advise him on preventing crimes and improving the treatment of victims.
The panel included 37 sexual assault survivors, law enforcement officials, advocates and legislators from both parties. It made 27 recommendations, including increasing funding for state crisis centers by $2.3 million. The centers helped more than 10,000 victims in 2007, and Kaine’s proposed $450,000 is expected to pay for the treatment of 1,000 additional people.
Kristine Hall of the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance, a statewide coalition, called the overall legislative package “responsive to systemic barriers and areas of need identified by victims of sexual violence, local experts on the field, as well as others across the state.”
Asking rape survivors and advocates what would best help women who have been sexually assaulted, instead of just trying to find out what is most politically popular and inexpensive? Sadly, it’s a fairly novel concept. Generally, the government just picks a class of people that needs “saving” and then tells said class of people what is best for them, without bothering to consider that they might have their own ideas or a unique perspective on their own situation.
So in the end, I’m not sure that motivations are what matters here. What matters is that Kaine is taking the initiative to propose and advocate for reform — and he’s doing it responsibly, in a way that actually involves women and acts on their needs. Good luck to you, governor.
Comments
5 Comments so far
Subscribe to The Curvature
“Men, their rights, and nothing more; women, their rights, and nothing less.” — Susan B. Anthony
This news was the very first thing I heard when my NPR-set alarm went off this morning- it was nice to wake up to good feminist news, for once. Although a bit late (federal Violence AGainst Women Act of 2005.. Virginia’s never been the brightest crayon in the box, no offense), I’m really
If you rape someone and then marry her, it doesn’t nullify the rape — in fact, it’s probably just going to provide an excuse for a lot more rape. This is, unfortunately, a standard practice in many cultures: “you made her unclean. you keep her now.” And if you are Phyllis Schlafly, of course, there is no such thing as raping a spouse. What was her gem of a quote? Oh yeah.. “By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don’t think you can call it rape.”
This was a really great post, Cara. There’s nothing I could add that you haven’t touched on. Thanks for doing all the research for us =)
wonderful post! and wonderful news!
though now i have to wonder how many states are currently not in compliance w/ the 2005 act. that is a pretty sad thing, and so many states have archaic laws, for example there was one in michigan that you could beat your wife in front of city hall w/ a stick no thicker than your thumb, but i hear that one was pretty common…
and good riddance to lie detectors…if you have ever taken one it leads you to doubt the whole process…they proctor tells you what to lie about, and gives you all these make believe scenarios to try to monitor what you are like when you lie, then they make it intentionally uncomfortable, and yell at you if you get distracted…i have known people to take up to about 9 hours on one test, so yeah, i would say they have no place in a court of law…jeebuz…
thanks again!
This is, unfortunately, a standard practice in many cultures: “you made her unclean. you keep her now.”
Indeed it is. But it’s that kind of shit that usually gets conservative assholes into a self-righteous rant about the evil, uncivilized Muslims. But now they’re defending it. When white Christian men rape, all is good, but when it’s men of color . . . well, this has been the system we’ve worked under for a long, long time, isn’t it?
I’ve heard about the law that brandann is talking about; the difference between the two is that (dear god I hope) you could not find anyone to defend the beating your wife law, but apparently legislators are willing to stand up and defend this rape law bullshit. In any case, I am indeed sometimes surprised to find out that we’re not past this shit. I guess that a bit of wishful thinking has to slip through every now and then.
I completely agree about what is said in the above article, but what about the minors that have actually consented to the older man? What if those two have have mutal feelings for eachother? I think that it should be decided that the statutory law in VA should be lowered to at least 17. Teenagers are not adults, but they have opinions, feelings, and let’s face it, they’ll be running this country some day.
As I said in the post, Kelso, I think that a lot of statutory rape laws go too far. But what we’re talking about here is a grown man having sex with a girl 14-16. Again, if we’re talking 16 and 18, or maybe 16 and 19, and the 16-year-old says that she consented, clearly the rape charge would be senseless.
Beyond that, I think that a genuinely consensual and non-manipulative relationship between a grown man and underage girl of 16 or younger would be extremely rare indeed. And I also honestly don’t care if a 14-year-old really wanted to have sex with a 25-year-old man. The guy knows that what he’s doing is wrong and has some really frightening boundary issues that I think fall into the pedophile category pretty easily.