California Prop 57 (the non violent early release law)

[Medusa]

Ok, so I came upon this subject whilst listening to my fave radio guy Larry Mantle on the NPR radio show called Air Talk. Be warned! Sensitive topic up ahead!

This prop that Californians (even myself sadly) voted for is a law that allows for early prison parole for non violent crimes (to lessen the overcrowding of the jail systems). Problem is the list of supposedly 'non violent' crimes pertaining to sexual assault. Just a few items that are considered "legally" non violent crimes that are elijable for early release and parole:

~Rape where victim is legally incapable of giving consent PC 261 a1 (minors, mentally disabled)
~Rape by intoxicating substance (roofie time at the club!) PC 261 a3 an 262 a2
~Rape when victim is unconscious of the act (coma? Nap Time? Dead as a door knob?) PC 261 a4 and 262 a3
~Rape by threat of public official (imagine #45 and his threat to grab your cootch) PC 261 a7 and 262 a5

The above crimes would be elijable for early release and parole.

Question: Is there ever a way in which a rape or sexual assault is not violent? Honestly? Can you think of any and say it with a straight face? First, imagine that 'non violent' crime you are about to defend. Now put the victim at 5 years old. No go on..tell me how it's non violent. I mean...my state is on crazy pills.

[anunitu]

I had found a few states where Rape is still a death penalty crime(I think mainly in the south) and also a famous case from California where a kidnapping pulled the death penalty(Chessman case if you wondered) Why I was searching on it. There was a time when Rape was a capital crime in MANY states,time changes many things. My idea of a minor non violent crime is busted for weed,or other personal consumption thing. In my mind,Rape is never non violent.

The Chessman case. (https://www.biography.com/people/caryl-chessman-17169566)

Caryl Chessman is best known for his controversial conviction for sex crimes and his execution in 1960.

[B. de Corbin]

Rape is an attack on the body, even if the weapon is mental coercion (as in "you will lose your job if you don't x x x").

Isn't an attack on another's body inherently violent?

[iris]

Short answer: no. Long answer: noooo.
It's always violent. It's an attack of another person's body. They may not end up with a broken nose. But it's still violence.
That ridiculous idea that if someone is unable to give consent you get off easier makes me absolutely furious.

[Bjorn]

There is no rape or assault or molestation that is nonviolent. And here I figured that law would release petty drug charges so potheads like me could get their fix.

[Juniper]

Question: Is there ever a way in which a rape or sexual assault is not violent?

Only if you're an old white guy in government. Apparently. Seriously, it seems these idiots don't have a single shred of decency within them. Maybe they should experience what rape feels like and I'm pretty sure they'd change their outlook.

No, this isn't a serious answer because a serious answer would clearly be that there no such thing as non violent rape.

[monsno_leedra]

The only way I could even imagine this (rape) as being non-violent is if they are looking at methodology of the incident vice type of incident. In the examples sited by duce there is no weapon used, ie gun, knife, etc. As such that could move it to a non-violent perspective as the victim is not in danger of being killed. Even the idea of do this or lose a job is not a threat of bodily harm.

Not saying it justifies it only saying that is the only way I can see how they might arrive at the idea that certain forms of rape would not be seen as violent crimes.

[MaskedOne]

Eh, the only areas of California's code on sex crimes that I'm seeing with a quick search that I don't tend to automatically consider violent* also tend to be too short for parole to be particularly relevant.

*
261.5 (b) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual
intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years older or
three years younger than the perpetrator, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

could theoretically be applied to an 18 year old and his 17 year and 11 month old girlfriend when both parties were willing. It would also likely end in the judge sentencing the older teen to a fine of a couple hundred and the matter would be over. If the probable end is either a painful but not necessarily back breaking fine or up to a year in county lock up (and I say up to a year because more than a year normally means felony) then parole isn't really happening.

Anything outside of 261.5 b can do without parole and 261.5 b is already a misdemeanor. Imprisonment is short and at the judge's discretion. I mean, sure it's remotely possible to jump through enough mental hoops to be generous with edge cases of 261.5 c (more than three years, neither party is 21 or over) but those rare edge cases of 261.5 c that might merit mercy have already been accounted for by the fact that 261.5 c can optionally be treated as a misdemeanor instead of a felony.