"Consent Before the Event" Act

Written By: Kaiya Hutchinson

While viewing Chloe Hsing-Smith and Molly Sherma’s bill sharing group, one bill showed great promise and popularity. In fact, Hsing-Smith even went as far as to say “this is the best-prepared bill I’ve seen…”; Fabio Mitma definitely made a lasting impression on delegates and chairs. His bill, called the “Consent Before the Event Act”, compared the crime of rape to one of murder.

In his bill, he proposes using degrees for rape and assault as they do for murder charges. He defines rape as “any act of sexual conduct that is without consent”, and sexual assault as “acts that may intend sexual conduct, but are not directly forcing the victim to participate in sexual conduct". In section three– his regulation section– he describes the etiquette to be followed both in court and out for these cases. For example, at least one police officer and one detective that took part in the investigation, must be present in the courtroom to represent the found evidence. In addition, if the defendant is found guilty, the judge must decide to place his punishment based on the degree of the crime the defendant was placed in. 

However, arguably, the most interesting portion of this bill is found is section two, which outlines definitions throughout his work. The fifth-degree is classified by wether or not the plaintiff agrees that their consent was unclear, taking account into their age. This also opens a door into the "consensual" legal age. The fourth degrees is if the Plaintiff was minorly under the influence and was unclear in their consent, but the other party was not under the influence, does not cross minor allegation, and/or the defendant has neurological problems. The third degree, in continuation, is if the Plaintiff was heavily under the influence and gave no consent, but the other party was not under the influence, is at a median allegation, and/or the defendant has neurological problems. The second degree discusses if the court decides there is a major allegation, which left emotional, but no physical damage to the plaintiff, and/or investigation leads directly to the defendant being guilty. Finally, the first degree is if there is indiscrete evidence that the accusation has happened, it is at a major allegation, and/or has left permanent physical damage to the plaintiff.

When asked about why he wrote the bill, Mitma responded that "the amount of people who are shunned away from reporting rape crimes, is too immense, and that needs to change.” The funding aspect for this bill is found through either false rape accusation fines or the nicotine taxation funds available. Regarding the Governor's new budget outline, this bill, fiscally, would denote it with saving the state money overall. Mitma's bill is a fresh new aspect on a current problem; this bill will surely be an excellent source of debate and introspection on the capitol floor.