© Larry Hogan / Twitter
On Tuesday, Hogan signed 211 bills into law during a ceremony at the state house, including SB 217, or "Criminal Law - Sexual Offenses - Physical Resistance," which eliminates the requirement that victims of sexual crimes prove they physically resisted their assailants.
"Making Maryland safer begins with making sure that we have a criminal justice system that holds offenders accountable for their actions and the harm they cause, while also supporting victims and the community in the process of healing," Hogan said in a press release.
Previously, victims of rape had to prove they did not consent and that their resistance was overcome by "force, or the threat of force," according to Section 3-303 of Maryland Criminal Law.
A 2016 BuzzFeed investigation into the Baltimore County Police Department found that the language in the law often allowed police to dismiss rape charges as "unfounded" if they believed that there wasn't enough evidence that the victim fought back.
The investigation states that even if a victim submitted to sexual acts out of fear for their life, the assailant was able to "walk away without so much as a police interrogation." Out of the 42 "unfounded" cases Buzzfeed investigated, 15 were dismissed because the victim did not resist enough.
The bill, signed Tuesday, amends the law, specifically stating, "evidence of physical resistance by a victim is not required to prove that a sexual crime was committed."
"Given that a victim increases their chances of being maimed or killed, if trying to physically resist the rape, this bill will clarify that a victim of rape does not have to fight the perpetrator or put up physical resistance in order for the court to hand down a guilty verdict," State Senator Delores Kelley (D-District 10), who sponsored the bill, said on her website.
The bill was unanimously passed by both the State House and Senate before Hogan signed it into law Tuesday.
In addition, Hogan signed SB 308, the Protecting Victims of Sex Trafficking Act, which expands the definition of sexual abuse to include sex trafficking, even in cases where the sexual abuse is committed by a parent or guardian.
All of the laws signed Tuesday will take effect on October 1.
Reader Comments
However, absent any actual evidence of resistance, I would expect that a significant number of cases would have only "he raped me; no, it was consensual" type of testimony, which is probably insufficient for conviction under a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
Seems like a slippery slope. Before sex, get all parties to sign an official legal contract of consent and that should clear all ambiguity...
That or be RICH and FAMOUS.
Even before this amendment of the law, is it not true that anyone can accuse anyone of rape?
Now, if you are talking about it being too easy to get a rape conviction, it is impossible to say from this article because it does not specify what other elements are traditionally required to build such a case.
Think about someone who was dosed with a drug in a bar. If the next day, a medical exam shows they had sex and they have this drug in their systems, they have something something to move forward with. Under the previous state of law, they could not.
Good point and I agree. But to protect the innocent, there needs to be safeguards. Accusation of guilt does not equal actual guilt.
The emphasis should always be on the one doing the accusing to prove the existence of guilt... not on the potentially innocent party to prove their innocence.
Otherwise, people will just be like the US.... accusation is enough for action to be taken. Guilty until proven innocent.
But I agree with what you said.
Maybe someone should come up with an app and before sex, the 2 parties consent and voila (maybe even after sex)... did I just come up with a business idea? Have sex at your own peril otherwise.
So today I was in a small town in central italy on a bus... before getting on, you are meant to buy a ticket... thats not enough though. You need to get the ticket validated and stamped by a machine before starting the journey. The machine is right at the front of the bus where most people enter the bus.
There's a back door too where you can enter where there is no machine. This family entered through the back door and took their seat right next to mine... later on the conductor comes to check the tickets. We all produce ours which have been validated. The family produce theres which was not validated.
The conductor tells them its invalid. The guy says he didnt know you were meant to put the ticket in the machine. Conductor says it's still invalid. The guys wife says, okay, what do we do now? Conductor says, well you have to pay a fine of 120 Euros. The ticket costs 7 euros.
The guy looks at the conductor and says, but I haven't done anything wrong, I was just bringing my family to the country side and I bought tickets as you see.... the conductor repeats like a robot, your tickets are invalid.
Pooor innocent family got terrorised by what looked like lack of common sense. Why didn't they use the machine? They were tourists, not local and no one said you have to stick the ticket in the machine. Unlike a train there are no barriers. Plus there was a language barrier.
So, lesson is.... unless you validate your ticket.... You are guilty. Doesn't matter if you validly bought those tickets to begin with...
So.... we need someone to come up with a sex validation machine. Remove all ambiguity from the equation.
Before sex, get all parties to sign an official legal contract of consent and that should clear all ambiguity...