Officer not being charged

[quincy]

The spouse is not a minor. 5-14-124 does not apply.

 

[CdwJava]

The spouse is not a minor. 5-14-124 does not apply.

Oops - missed the "minor" part ... though, I am pretty certain that somewhere in those sections there must be a section that covers the act under color of authority. If not specifically the sexual assault, I imagine there are color of authority offenses. In any event, I cannot imagine that such an act is NOT a crime even in Arkansas.

 

[quincy]

Oops - missed the "minor" part ... though, I am pretty certain that somewhere in those sections there must be a section that covers the act under color of authority. If not specifically the sexual assault, I imagine there are color of authority offenses. In any event, I cannot imagine that such an act is NOT a crime even in Arkansas.

I agree there is probably a law somewhere that covers it.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

5-14-126

 

[quincy]

5-14-126

That seems to cover it. It is a Class C felony.

 

[CdwJava]

Okay, I see it ... position of trust or authority over the person. Yeah, that should be the one.

 

[quincy]

Here is a link to the 2017 version of the law: https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/2017/title-5/subtitle-2/chapter-14/subchapter-1/section-5-14-126/

Consent is not a defense.

 

[CdwJava]

Nope. In such circumstances consent is rarely ever a defense since, among other things, there is a presumption that it cannot be freely given.

Historically, there is a difference between a sexual act performed through the threat of force or fear, and one made through a position of power and influence - not the least of which the way the offense has been historically captured in the nationwide FBI stats per UCR reporting. Prior to 2013, sexual assault such as defined in the Arkansas statutes we have mentioned here would NOT have been categorized as "Rape" per the UCR and NIBRS. Since 2013 they are. This can be important to note when doing research on rape using the FBI's UCR or NIBRS reporting numbers as this can lead to the impression of a rise in sexual assaults in some jurisdictions since that time when it has, in fact, simply been the way in which the data is captured.

 

[quincy]

Nope. In such circumstances consent is rarely ever a defense since, among other things, there is a presumption that it cannot be freely given.

Historically, there is a difference between a sexual act performed through the threat of force or fear, and one made through a position of power and influence - not the least of which the way the offense has been historically captured in the nationwide FBI stats per UCR reporting. Prior to 2013, sexual assault such as defined in the Arkansas statutes we have mentioned here would NOT have been categorized as "Rape" per the UCR and NIBRS. Since 2013 they are. This can be important to note when doing research on rape using the FBI's UCR or NIBRS reporting numbers as this can lead to the impression of a rise in sexual assaults in some jurisdictions since that time when it has, in fact, simply been the way in which the data is captured.

A lot of states do not have "rape" laws any more but instead have varying degrees of "sexual assault."

 

[CdwJava]

A lot of states do not have "rape" laws any more but instead have varying degrees of "sexual assault."

But, they will still generally be categorized as "rape" in UCR if the act was carried out against the consent of the victim and involved sexual intercourse or penetration. What the state might call it makes little difference if it was a sexual act committed against the consent of the victim.

However, the language is such that the state (even the local jurisdiction) might fudge reporting to make it look better if they decide to get waffly on the issue of "consent". Jurisdictions and states have been playing fast and loose with these crime stats for decades when it suits them politically.

 

[quincy]

But, they will still generally be categorized as "rape" in UCR if the act was carried out against the consent of the victim and involved sexual intercourse or penetration. What the state might call it makes little difference if it was a sexual act committed against the consent of the victim.

However, the language is such that the state (even the local jurisdiction) might fudge reporting to make it look better if they decide to get waffly on the issue of "consent". Jurisdictions and states have been playing fast and loose with these crime stats for decades when it suits them politically.

Not surprising.

 

[CdwJava]

As an example ... If I were to wish to lessen the impact of crime stats in my jurisdiction to make my locale a more inviting place, I might decide that all of these first through third degree "sexual assault" charges did not involve a true LACK of consent (and at the records level, based upon the offense reported, it may be impossible to say whether it was compelled or not) and categorize these as Part II crimes and NOT as Rape (a part I crime in UCR). Truly nefarious.

 

[quincy]

As an example ... If I were to wish to lessen the impact of crime stats in my jurisdiction to make my locale a more inviting place, I might decide that all of these first through third degree "sexual assault" charges did not involve a true LACK of consent (and at the records level, based upon the offense reported, it may be impossible to say whether it was compelled or not) and categorize these as Part II crimes and NOT as Rape (a part I crime in UCR). Truly nefarious.

Ah, politics. It infects everything.

 

[cbg]

The possibility exists that they are still building their case...

 

[quincy]

The possibility exists that they are still building their case...

That ... and/or they are not going to say anything to the spouse of the victim.