Posted on 01/23/2017 9:18:26 PM PST by TigerClaws
CONCORD — A proposal to change state law regarding evidence in sexual assault cases amounts to “nothing more than a pedophile protection act and rapist shield law,” according to Concord Police Detective Sean Ford.
But the sponsor of House Bill 106, Rep. William Marsh, R-Wolfeboro, says no one should be charged, let alone convicted, solely on the basis of an alleged victim’s testimony with no other corroboration.
The two men took turns at the witness table on Tuesday, as the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee heard nearly four hours of testimony on a bill that would require the allegations of victims to be corroborated by other evidence in sexual assault cases where the defendant has no prior conviction.
Marsh, a board certified ophthalmologist, said he was moved to sponsor the bill after Bow psychologist Foad Afshar was convicted last year of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old male patient in 2015 solely on the patient’s testimony.
The hearing room was packed with opponents of the bill, many mobilized by the N.H. Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, wearing pink stickers that read, “I believe victims. Oppose HB 106.”
Supporters of the change, many of them friends or acquaintances of Afshar, were also well-represented, wearing tags that read, “Justice for Fohad.”
Opponents said the bill, if passed into law, would have a chilling effect on the victims of sexual abuse and make them even more reluctant to come forward.
Supporters argued the change was needed to prevent prosecution of the innocent brought about by faulty memory, vindictive acts or other motives.
The bill’s defenders also said the change is needed to address a fear of prosecution that is making it difficult to recruit volunteers for youth activities or social programs.
“Three psychologists and two physicians have told me this case (of Dr. Afshar) has made them afraid to treat the children most in need of treatment — the victims of childhood sexual abuse that we should protect,” said Marsh. “This is the smallest change we can make to the system so that psychologists and doctors who fear being falsely accused can obtain the protections they need to do their jobs.”
State Rep. Jess Edwards, R-Auburn, testified that at one time he was considering becoming a volunteer for Big Brothers Big Sisters, but was advised against it. “A friend trained in clinical psychology advised me that under no circumstances should I become a Big Brother because a mere accusation would destroy me,” he said.
Concord resident Pat Wallace took aim at the opponents of the legislation.
“I simply ask that all of you look around this room and notice the number of people wearing little pink tags,” she said to the committee. “Then I would ask if you honestly believe that these people would recuse themselves if they were asked to serve on a jury in a rape case.”
Those speaking in opposition, in addition to victims, included chiefs of police, a former federal prosecutor, representatives from the Department of Safety and former Republican state Sen. David Boutin.
Former Assistant U.S. District Attorney David A. Vicinanzo alluded to the Afshar case. “Hard cases make bad law,” he said. “The collateral, unintended consequences of this bill would be significant.”
He urged lawmakers to have faith in jurors who must be convinced unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt. “That is the primary protection that our Constitution and Founding Fathers have put in place to ensure against wrongful convictions,” he said.
Chief Andrew Lavoie of the Nashua Police Department sounded a similar note: “The long-standing practice has been letting a judge and jury determine a victim’s credibility, with all due respect, not the Legislature,” he said. “This is a tremendous overreach, and will have a tremendously chilling effect on what is already one of the most under-reported crimes.”
Boutin, wearing an “I believe the victims” tag, said the Legislature had made significant progress in protecting the victims of sexual assault, particularly children, and called the bill a step backwards.
“I have learned that changing a statute to address a single incident, which is where this bill comes from, needs to be avoided at all costs because it does serve the few, but may have irreversible harm to many.” - See more at: http://www.unionleader.com/state-government/Proposed-change-in-sexual-assault-statute-called-pedophile-protection-01182017#sthash.VzxcRe48.dpuf
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/01/17/bill-would-require-corroboration-in-new-hampshire-sexual-assault-cases
"The bill up for a hearing Tuesday would require victims of sexual assault to corroborate their testimony if the defendant has no prior related conviction. "
Local police chiefs have been voicing out against this bill which is good. If only they could see the bigger picture behind this.
You can’t convict a murderer , a drug trafficker , or anything else on an accusation. But you can convict someone when they are just accused of rape/abuse/whatever? So by your logic President Trump should be sex offender Trump, after all he was accused of sexual assault by multiple women. By your logic you’re stating this. Are you insane?
What jury is going to seriously consider the character of the witness when the law is already one sided in women’s favor regarding pretty much everything?
You’re absolutely insane if you think this bill is a bad thing. Absolutely insane.
I love how they also say one of the “most under-reported crimes.”
FALSE FALSE FALSE.
ALL CRIMES ARE UNDER-REPORTED.
If you buy into this false statement then you’ve been spoon fed the MSM lies about sex crimes.
This touches on the heart of campus rape stories. Whatever man is accused of rape basically gets kicked out without a fair trial, having already been judged by the court of public opinion. No facts, no evidence needed by whatever school board.
We have feminism to thank for this (that’s sarcasm).
Been there done that.
Wont go into detail, but when my brother found out someone accused me, he went to the bathroom and threw up.
He is an attorney and said it was always a chance that you could be indicted with just the woman’s testimony.
Been dating the girl a few months when she accused me.
When I told the police that she had told me her brother and his friends raped her repeatedly growing up and they presented her with this claim, she dropped charges.
She was 24 at the time and there is a statute on rape in NYC, so i dont know what happened afterwords, and I dont know when the brother stopped raping her. I doubt he was brought up on charges.
Many men and a few women sit in jail today because of false charges of rape and sexual misconduct. What the hell happened to the phrase, “beyond a shadow of doubt?”
It doesn’t pertain much to such an emotional crime.
I seriously thought I was ####ed after my brother told me stories about when he worked at the DA.
Ah, I knew she was damaged mentally and dangerous but she was so hot!
Stupid reason to date when you KNOW it can only end bad.
Most men in their 20s aren’t known for thinking straight when it come to women.
Meanwhile the brother and friends got away with it, most likely.
Sad story
Not to worry the ugly nasty vaginas tha are protesting are protesting for you, sharia law will fix this, all women will become slaves
The sponsors are now trying to withdraw support of it....
but.......
“Since the bill made it to committee, the sponsors cannot withdraw their bill. The fate of HB106, whether it will die or move forward, now sits in the hands of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee member’s hands.”
https://www.legiscan.com/NH/bill/HB106/2017
Yep. I’ve met many men that have gone through this, some have been convicted, some haven’t. But it’s complete nonsense.
A sane law gets withdrawn because of kookoo bird emotional rage.
Oh sure (eye roll). Very suspicious timing that they would try to enact this with Pizzagate on the horizon and no crooked head of the DOJ and FBI to protect the little pedophiles. Must be some very nervous people out there.
And a little terrifying. If I was a college guy today and wanted to kiss a girl I’d have the girl sign a ####ing 15 page contract in front of a sworn witness.
It isn’t a “pedophile protection act” that is ridiculous, it is an equal protection under the law act in one state.
You must not understand that there are crazy , scornful, vengeful, hateful, nasty women out there that will accuse men of things just to get back at them.
One witness testimony is not enough in any criminal case except for “sex crimes.” So some crazy joke of a woman decides she wants revenge and tells the cops she witnessed your son touch her daughter, or she was raped by your son. There is no evidence but her testimony, and your son goes to prison for 20 years because of the “always believe the victim” mantra.
You’ll be singing a completely different tune then.
That my FRiend, should terrify you. Because if they can do it with sex crimes, they can do it with any other crime.
When all it takes is one liar to send your A$$ to prison for years to life you should be terrified.
Probably wouldn’t even matter. She’d just say she was coerced and the witness was in on it, and you’d both go to prison.
That’s how ridiculously retarded sex crime prosecution is.
See my post #5. Believe me, I know.
“You must not understand that there are crazy , scornful, vengeful, hateful, nasty women out there that will accuse men of things just to get back at them.”
Tell your son not to think with his little brain when he picks a woman to get involved with.
I understand that there are vile disgusting pedophiles that prey on children and they hang out in places where they think they are not going to be suspect like conservative forums.
Magnolia thinks I am some kind of disgusting pedophile.
See this is the emotional outrage I am speaking about.
Magnolia, you cannot approach this subject with any amount of objectivity because of the emotional outrage that you feel about pedophiles.
While there are vile disgusting pedophiles out there that do indeed prey on children, they are in fact very very rare.
Sex offenses have the lowest recidivism rate of any other crime with one exception: Murder. This means that those that have committed sex offenses are less likely than any other criminal(besides murderers) to ever commit another sex offense or any other offense in general. This is a verifiable fact that you can look up if you don’t believe me.
The media and people like Nancy Grace have sensationalized this topic like no other. Because of the emotional outrage you are feeling, and I completely understand it.
I’m not defending anyone that would hurt a child. But honestly you need to read some information about the truth behind the ever-expanding registries and “sex crimes” that legislators keep churning out.
What I am doing is defending every Americans constitutional rights to fair and due process and the rest of our God given rights. The sex offender registries do not work, are unconstitutional, and are being used to violate ex post facto all around the country. If they worked people like the Garrido’s would never have done what they did (that’s just one example, there are many many more). It has even been suggested and can be argued that the registries do more harm then good for communities and society at large.
This law supports the constitution. One hundred percent.
If Trump were just an average Joe and had been accused of sexual assault by as many women that accused Trump of sexual assault, then with just their testimony alone and no other evidence a jury would convict him and he would spend a long, long time in prison because of the same outrage you feel. Even if it were only one woman there is a very very high chance that average Joe Trump would be convicted.
I challenge you to be objective and think rationally about this.
dp0622; I have read your posts. You are very lucky that you were not indicted and charged. Very. Very. Lucky. I have not read many horror stories that were averted, after what you went through I imagine you are as upset as me that supposed supporters of the constitution cannot think objectively about this topic. It drives me crazy.
Man, people are put on the registry way too easily.
If they REALLY only included REAL sexual predators on the registry, the recidivism rate on that list WOULD be high, I think.
But because of the vast numbers of ways you can end up on the registry, the REAL dangerous folk are thrown in with everyone else and LESS attention is paid to them.
And that’s the worst part. You look on a map and there’s 4 million offenders in your area. Come on man. Show me who is a REAL danger. Otherwise it defeats the purpose.
Yep.
I’m not sure if this figure is correct but I believe(I could be wrong) that the registries contain around 5% or so of offenders that are highly likely to offend again, and have been deemed predatory.
They’re delighted that thousands are added to the registry every year, and that legislation writes more laws that will get people on the registry.
The married couple that kidnapped Jaycee and imprisoned her for 18 years actual had the Parole officer visit their residence multiple times while she was there. I believe on one visit they claimed she was their daughter, or niece or something and the officer didn’t even look into it. It’s really terrifying. There must be people out there that are getting away with some really twisted stuff. That’s what keeps me up at night.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.