| The move concerns both prosecutors and civil rights attorneys, however. They say the pending bills in the state Assembly and Senate might make it harder - not easier - to convict rapists.
The bystanders in the Richmond case could not be charged with a crime because current law only requires witnesses to report murder or rape when the victim is younger than 14. Failing to do so is a misdemeanor, punishable by six months in jail and a $1,500 fine.
A bill to be taken up by the Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday would remove the age limitation, but give witnesses up to 96 hours - four days - to report a rape.
The bill by Assemblyman Isadore Hall, D-Compton, is competing with two similar measures this year.
The Assembly approved a bill by Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D- Santa Barbara, in January that also would remove the age limitation, without giving witnesses a reporting window. A bill by Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, would raise the reporting age from 14 to 18.
Both the Nava and Yee bills would apply to murder as well as rape. Yee's bill has not yet been set for a committee hearing, while Nava's bill is awaiting Senate action.
"There's clearly a good intent," said Scott Thorpe, chief executive officer of the California District Attorneys Association. "The question is, is this a good way to do it?"
Witnesses identified during investigations might be more reluctant to cooperate if they fear being charged with a crime, Thorpe said. If witnesses are granted immunity from prosecution, defense attorneys can use that to challenge their truthfulness and motivation during trials.
American Civil Liberties Union lobbyist Valerie Small Navarro said police should concentrate on building relations with the community and protecting witnesses from retaliation.
"You would be committing a crime just for being at the wrong place at the wrong time," Navarro said. "Is this what we want, criminalizing innocent behavior?"
Nava, a former deputy district attorney who is running for attorney general, countered that the bills merely expand existing law. He said no one has demonstrated that current law has caused problems for police or prosecutors.
"I think the Richmond rape did capture everyone's attention and cried out for some kind of a response," said Nava. "Ultimately what we would all like is for people in society to feel that duty and obligation to help their neighbor. But sometimes people need a little encouragement. That's what the bill is trying to do."
In the Richmond case, police finally were called not by a witness, but by a former Richmond High student who said she learned about it from a family member who heard people bragging about the incident. Officers found the girl semiconscious and partly clothed near a picnic table. Seven suspects ranging in ages 15 to 43 have pleaded not guilty to rape.
Richmond police have been working with state lawmakers to craft the proposed legal changes.
It's better to apply the law immediately rather than giving witnesses "four days to think it over," Nava said, and to apply it to victims of all ages.
Yee believes the emphasis should remain on protecting minors, while adult women should be able to choose whether to seek charges against their attackers, said spokesman Adam Keigwin. For similar reasons, Yee authored a 2008 law specifying that adult domestic violence victims can't be punished for refusing to testify against their attackers.
Hall did not respond to repeated messages seeking comment Friday.
The Assembly Public Safety Committee is set to also consider several other bills Tuesday:
- It would be illegal to smuggle cell phones to prison inmates under a bill by Sen. Alex Padilla, D- Los Angeles. Cell phones are not on the current list of prison contraband, but Padilla's bill would make smuggling the phones a misdemeanor. It also would let prison officials confiscate any phones brought into prisons by visitors, even if visitors did not intend to give them to inmates. Prison officials say inmates have used the phones to coordinate escapes, attacks, and crimes on the street.
- Felony burglary is currently defined as entering a building or vehicle with intent to resist, delay, or obstruct police, allowing fleeing criminals to break into someone's house, business or vehicle to evade police and face only a misdemeanor. A bill by Assemblyman Jim Nielsen, R-Yuba City, would expand the felony burglary law to include entering a building or vehicle with intent to resist, delay, or obstruct police.
- Anyone convicted of secretly photographing someone under or through their clothing would be required to register as a sex offender under a bill by Assemblyman Kevin Jeffries, R-Lake Elsinore. It is currently a misdemeanor to use a concealed still or video camera to take such photographs.
- Meanwhile, the Senate Public Employment and Retirement Committee on Monday is set to take up a bill that would continue paychecks for state employees even if the state has no budget in place by the start of the new fiscal year on July 1. The bill by Assemblyman Ira Ruskin, D- Redwood City, would require that employees be paid their usual hourly wages. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has cited a 2003 California Supreme Court decision that employees should be paid only the federal minimum wage if the state has no budget.
----
Read the bills at http://www.sen.ca.gov and http://www.assembly.ca.gov
----
Associated Press Writer Terry Collins contributed to this story from San Francisco
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 EDITOR'S NOTE: Have an opinoin on this? Why not express yourself by responding to the LA Daily News' request, below. The newspaper's hoping to present any responses and findings in its next Sunday Edition:
Should inaction be a crime? Question of the week
The LA Daily News
March 1, 2010
SEE a crime. Don't report it. Go to jail.
That's what could happen to Californians who witness a crime but fail to report it under proposals by state legislators hoping to spur bystanders into action.
The proposals stem from a brutal gang-rape a 16-year-old girl outside a high school homecoming dance in Northern California last year. During the two hours the crime occurred, as many as 20 people stood by and watched for nearly two hours, according to police.
But while the witnesses might be guilty of bad behavior, under current state law, they aren't guilty of a crime. Witnesses are required to report murder or rape only when the victim is younger than 14.
As simple as this new law sounds, the debate surrounding it has brought up some troubling and complex arguments. For one, some say it could make it harder to convict rapists because witnesses might not come forward if they could be charged with a crime. As well, others suggest that changing the law could, in some cases, scare people away from stopping crimes because of worries of getting prosecuted.
Others say that such requirements would encourage people who stand aside idly to do something rather than pay a fine. For example, under proposed legislation, bystanders in the Richmond case would have been guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by six months in jail and a $1,500 fine.
What do you think?
Will making it a crime to witness a crime and not report it make us a safer society? Or will it just make it more likely that people will purposely turn away from crimes in process and lie about whether they saw anything?
Send your responses to opinionated@dailynews.com
Please include your full name, the community or city in which you live and a daytime phone number. We'll print as many as we can in Sunday's Opinionated section.
http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_14494967 |
|
