By Christine Wisniewski
A bill that would establish that evidence of physical resistance is not required in order to prove sexual assault has held favorable reports and passed its second reading at the Maryland General Assembly as of March 31. The bill was returned to the Senate as of April 5 with no additional amendments and will become effective as of Oct. 1 of this year.
Sponsored by Sen. Delores Kelley of Baltimore, the legislation would aid those who have been sexually assaulted but may not have physical signs of resistance on their body. This comes after a shift in view about what constitutes sexual assault, recognizing that some victims may not physically resist assault due to being intoxicated or fearing that resisting may make the attacker angry, resulting in more severe injuries.
“Maryland’s law is still archaic,” said Kelley in an article written in January for Baltimore’s ABC2. Kelley continued to say that Maryland is still one of the few states that insists that a rape victim must prove resistance to force in order for the attacker to be prosecuted.
In addition to Kelley, 33 other Maryland representatives are backing the bill.
The bill’s first reading occurred Jan. 19. After a hearing on March 29 at 1 p.m. in the House, it was again deemed favorable. It passed its third reading on April 4, then was returned to the Senate the following day.
The bill has already been cross-filed with a house bill of the same topic, which was sponsored by Montgomery County Delegate Kathleen Dumais.
Lisae Jordan, who works with the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault told ABC2 News back in January that a rape victim shouldn’t have to choose between potentially getting hurt and getting access to justice.
“It’s just completely backwards from what we’re telling young people today,” she said to ABC2 in Baltimore. “We tell people you have to get consent, if it’s not consent its (sic) rape, then the law doesn’t back that up.”
Effects of the bill
Fiscally, there is only expected to be a minimal increase in general funding for the Department of Public Safety and Correctional services if the bill results in more people being jailed due to sexual offenses. If the number of sexual assault evidence kids tested by the state police increase, then there is a potential for general spending to increase as well.
Similarly, local spending would only increase if the bill results in more testing of evidence kits. There will be no effect on small businesses if this bill is passed.
The current law states that force is an element to the crime of sexual assault, and to justify a conviction, there must be evidence that the victim resisted the assault. However, the current law also recognizes that force can exist without violence.
In 2015, law enforcement was required to take inventory of all sexual assault kits and report the findings to the Office of the Attorney General, according to the policy analysis on the bill. The Office of the Attorney General then compiled a report for the General Assembly that stated the number of untested sexual assault kits that were in storage at each agency. According to the report, Montgomery County, Baltimore City, and Howard County had the highest numbers of untested kits.
The cause for the untested kits is because agencies have decided not to submit them for testing, according to the report.
A report published by the Office of the Attorney General also stated “the fact of an assault but the absence of physical resistance may contribute to an agency’s policy decision not to pursue testing or prosecution.”
If this legislation is passed, there is a chance that more people will be prosecuted for sexual crimes, thus raising inmate numbers, according to a policy analysis on the bill. The average cost per month per inmate is approximately $3,600, stated the analysis. However, the bill alone isn’t expected to create the need for new beds or staff at state prisons.
The bill is also not expected to affect prosecution or conviction rates for sexual offenses, according to the report.
A similar bill was introduced back in 2005, however, it did not receive favorable reports and was not passed.