Earlier this year, a California rape case attracted nationwide attention.
A Stanford University athlete, Brock Turner, was convicted of sexually assaulting an intoxicated unconscious woman–and sentenced to probation with only six months in jail. Advocates for sexual assault victims were enraged by the light sentence given to a privileged defendant.
Public outrage over the Brock Turner case led California lawmakers to pass AB 2888. This law tightens the penalties for California sexual assault crimes by eliminating the possibility of felony (formal) probation in the following cases:
- Penal Code 261 PC rape cases where the victim was unconscious, asleep or intoxicated,
- Penal Code 286 PC sodomy cases where the victim was unconscious, asleep or intoxicated,
- Penal Code 287 PC oral copulation by force or fear cases where the victim was unconscious, asleep or intoxicated, and
- Penal Code 289 PC forcible penetration with a foreign object cases where the victim was unconscious, asleep or intoxicated.
Prior to AB 2888, judges had the discretion to grant probation to sexual assault defendants in most cases where the assault did not involve physical force/violence or fear. This was what made Brock Turner’s sentence possible. Now, though, a defendant like Turner will be forced to serve years in state prison.
Turner’s sentence may have been unjustifiably lenient. But many commentators fear that the cure–AB 2888–is worse than the disease.
Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union opposed AB 2888. Their reasoning was that it–like countless other “tough on crime” mandatory minimum bills–will disproportionately affect low-income or minority defendants who can’t afford to hire a private criminal defense attorney to help them beat the charges or negotiate a plea bargain to a lesser charge where probation is permitted.