The proposal of penal groid receives the rejection of Iowa legislators

Cedar Rapids – A proposed bill to close a significant gap in a state assault law by improving sanctions for someone to touch the intimate areas of another, has affected an obstacle with legislators, leaving prosecutors scratching their heads on Why this bill has received so much setback.

The Gazette spoke with Linn County Prosecutor Nick Maybanks, a member of the Legislative Committee of the Iowa County Prosecutor’s Association. He proposed this change a few years ago, but a priority was not made until this year.

Q: What is the original bill proposed by the Association?

TO: The proposed bill was intended to address a substantial gap in the law with respect to an assault. The current law of grades to a person in intimate areas of the body (buttocks, breast, groin) is treated as a simple minor crime if there are no injuries or is not destined to cause real sexual abuse.

He proposed law It would be assault for criminal testimony, which would be a minor crime and transport of up to one year in jail. Now, that does not mean that prosecutors would seek 365 days in jail for those crimes. We would be looking for something between a minimum fine and a year in jail, but this would give some teeth in the punishment. It would give criminals an incentive to seek treatment or deter behavior by placing them on probation.

Q: What is the current penalty for this type of assault?

TO: A simple assault, which has been in jail for up to 30 days, but if a prosecutor does not label it as time in jail, it could happen without the opportunity to request it, which means that they could pay a fine and not fulfill time in the jail. With a simple one, there is also no opportunity for probation or treatment to address more serious behavior, if necessary.

Q: What led you to propose this bill? Was it a specific case?

TO: I proposed it through the Association three or four years ago based on my many years of experience when seeing these cases referring to the office by the police and realizing that we can only charge as a simple assault.

This is an important problem due to trauma and seriousness, especially the psychological effect for victims. The assault by groits, in our opinion, must be more seriously as a thrust or push. Or at a higher level than a crime of minor theft.

Q: Do you have any idea how many of these cases come out or refer every year?

TO: It happens very frequently. I have no numbers because this crime is not a category of crimes with its own definition that we can track, but when speaking with other county lawyers throughout the State, we were all experiencing our inability to hold the criminals who commit these guys responsible. of assaults. Basically, the entire Chamber (of the prosecutors in the Committee) nodded that we needed to do something to increase the sanctions for this type of behavior. Thus became a priority for the association this year.

When the victims listen about this (being just a simple assault) and that the law handcuffed us to collect a higher fine, they are shocked.

Q: Did you think there would be a problem or opposition to approve it or make legislators on board support it?

TO: No. I thought it would be obvious. Obviously, we would like to treat an assault that groped the chest or buttocks of a woman offensively more seriously and say that there should be greater penalty.

At an individual level when I have spoken with people, particularly the woman, about this, unfortunately almost all have experienced this type of crime or know someone who has and support this. In all areas.

Q: What were the problems when Senate Study Bill 1004 and Pando de Estudio de la Chamber of Representatives 12 were they proposed in the subcommittees?

TO: He found an immediate obstacle in the house and was presented, no immediate measures were taken due to their concerns. One of the legislators said that this would result in the “horse game” being processed, as a touch of congratulation in the rear for a good shot for a game, and would potentially end up a sexual offensive, which could not be more wrong and incorrect. Somehow (they thought) this law would cover an innocuous behavior, but what they did not realize is obvious: it is a bill by assault by criminal touches. An assault made with the intention of causing pain or injury or being offensive to the receiver. Sports incidents would not go through the police. First, they would not take a report. And prosecutors would not present charges.

Q: Other concerns?

TO: Some thought this behavior was already covered in the code, but that is the problem. It falls under a simple assault. It is no different from whether someone lifted a fist, threatening to hit another, which is different, touching someone. This crime is not properly covered in the code.

Q: Wasn’t there any setback because this offensive grades could trigger the requirement of sexual criminals record?

TO: That is usually a hot button problem. They worried that if someone does something wrong at an early age, it could be labeled as a sexual offender for the rest of their lives. We approached that in the original bill and there would have to be a separate finding that the teaching had a sexual motive for the registration to apply.

Q: Did legislators oppose women, men, both?

TO: In the subcommittee of the house, there were three men. There was a legislator in the committee, the representative Judd Lawler, R-District 91, who has been willing to work with us to amend the bill. It has suggested to change the crime to the harassment code as a second grade, a serious minor crime. The same up to a year in prison penalty. We appreciate that and we are open to amendments.

Q: Did the Senate subcommittee pass?

TO: Yes. But there are concerns that it must be amended before it continues. Potentially, we have reached a wall, so there must be some interest from the legislature and the community. This is the call to action: call its legislators and say that this deserves a committee hearing. Personally I think if it reaches the floor, it will pass. On his face, he is so logical. This has required more education of legislators than I would have thought.

Comments: (319) 398-8318; [email protected]