Pennsylvania and California: States separated by around 2,000 miles, marijuana legalization, sunlight, and apparently attitudes toward sexual assault.
California legislators passed a law Sept. 29 which will change how college campuses address consent. It shifts from the usual “no means no” standard to requiring “an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision” from each party about to engage in sexual activity.
“Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent,” the law states, according to a Sept. 29 NPR article, “nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time.”
Requiring people to make sure their partner is conscious and actually wants to have sex with them is not unreasonable. A woman who didn’t verbally say no, but rather flinched and turned her head and was too drunk and cried, should be just as legally protected as a woman who did all those things and also managed to articulate the word “no.”
So California took a step toward clarifying all-too-often gray area of consent. It helps protect victims and establishes laws that help them.
And then there’s Pennsylvania.
In Bellefonte, Pa., a Rockview state prison clerk was raped at work in July 2013 by an inmate. Security footage shows her being choked unconscious and assaulted for 27 minutes, according to a Sept. 23 article from the Centre Daily Times. The rapist, Omar Best, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison on Sept. 12.
Now, the victim is suing the state of Pennsylvania. Best had been transferred to Rockview after assaulting a female assistant at his previous facility, and she told her supervisor twice that she was uncomfortable with him coming into her office, according to a Sept. 25 CNN.com article.
Bear that in mind when reading the following piece of a response to the lawsuit the state Attorney General’s office filed:
“Some or all of the damages plaintiff have alleged are in part, or substantially due, to the acts of third parties other than the answering defendants, and/or plaintiff acted in a manner which in whole or in part contributed to the events which led to the damages plaintiff has alleged in her complaint.”
It’s actually shocking how brazenly the response opens the door to blame the woman for her own rape. Usually victim-blaming refers to people asking what the victim was wearing, or how drunk she was, or why she was walking someplace alone. But the statement doesn’t even try for that level of subtlety.
It flat-out says she is at least partly responsible for her own rape, and it is utterly absurd.
State Attorney General Kathleen Kane has distanced herself from the statement. Her spokesman said she wasn’t aware of the response and is sensitive to the struggles victims of sexual assault go through in court, according to the Centre Daily Times.
An additional statement from the Attorney General’s office, released after the initial statement drew outrage, argued that the defense had to present all possible arguments, even if they wouldn’t be pursued during the trial.
Jessica Storm, a victims’ rights advocate, told CNN that it’s “not common legalese,” but rather is an unusual argument in rape cases.
The Attorney General’s office’s logic is fumbling, and it’s not good enough. A rape victim deserves more respect and sensitivity than the statement gives. The lawyers representing the state should be aware of that and act accordingly. Instead, they tried to hide coldness and callousness behind the guise of legal arguments.
They turned a woman’s trauma into something she caused. They told her she’s at fault. They treated her like a legal obstacle, not a human being.
They should take some cues from California. Victims should be protected under the law, not blamed under it.