BY-NC-SA In the wake of an attack on a Richmond High student, local politicians have proposed bills emphasizing witness responsibility. Currently, the law requires people to report any violent crime committed against a person 14-years-old or younger. Now, Pedro Nava, a Democratic assemblyman from Santa Barbara wants to revise the Witness Responsibility Act making witnesses responsible for reporting crimes against a person regardless of age. The penalties in his new proposal would be the same as they are under current law—six months in jail and a fine of $1,500 if the witness did not comply with the law.
Youth Radio spoke to Nava about his new proposal.
YR: What is most important for people to know about the Witness Responsibility Act?
Nava:…All that my bill does, it’s simply say, that if you are witness to a murder or rape or any type of crime like that you have an obligation to report the crime. Existing law already has a duty for a witness if the victim is under 14 years of age and my perspective on that is, you still feel the pain and fear and the isolation if you are 15, 16, 18, 65, 75 age doesn’t really matter. I think the important part is, if you see a victim of a rape or murder, get the phone and report it to the police.
more on Nava after the jump
YR: Why did it take an incident like Richmond’s to realize putting an age limit is not the best type of law for these circumstances?
Nava: The genesis of the current law was the rape and murder of an 8-year-old girl in Las Vegas and when that was happening in a bathroom there was a witness who was a friend of the attacker who knew what was going on and who did nothing about it. And so I think when California was thinking about how to respond to this they needed to reach some sort of compromise and some how they came to the age of fourteen. I think making that kind of determination is arbitrary. There doesn’t seem to be any other requirement that relates to the age of 14. You would have thought that if they were concern about minors they would have passed a law that protected minors up to the age of 18 but they didn’t do that. I think it is a contradiction and in the case of the young woman in Richmond she was 16 and so she was 2 years too old for the existing law to apply to the 10-15 witnesses’ police belief either walked by or watched or some reported took pictures with their cell phones. I think those cell phone should be used to call the police when you see a crime like that.
Youth Radio: The proposal under went it's first hearing, was there opposition?
Nava: There was opposition. There were members of American Civil Union; there was opposition from a group that represents criminal attorneys. They spoke out against the bill. They didn’t like the bill; they didn’t think it was necessary. They raised the argument that it may actually deter people from reporting crimes but I think we were able to answer those questions very successfully. One of the points that I raised is that there doesn’t seem to have been any problems associating with the existing law—when you have an obligation to call if the victim is under 14 years of age. I didn’t anticipate that there would be problems eliminating the age limitation.
Youth Radio: What do you think about Senator Yee’s proposal, in which the she extends the age of protection to 18?
Nava: ...First of all, if you’re a witness are you supposed to guess whether or not the person you see getting attack is 17 and a half, are you supposed to guess if they’re 18 or 19 and therefore you don’t have to make a call? Is the same problem with the current law…We should be providing more protection to victims, not less. We shouldn’t be making these distinctions based on age and we ought to be encouraging through the law people to report crimes so that victims have more protection. I just imagine what it must be like for that young girl and her family to try to put their lives together after this attack and how much easier it might have been if the assault was reported in the few minutes. Two and half hours is an extraordinary long time to feel helpless, to be beaten, to be repeatedly rape—two and half hours and it didn’t have to be that way.
Youth Radio: Why do we have to implement or reinforce a law in order for people to do the right thing?
Nava: I think maybe sometimes we make assumptions how we expect people to behave and I certainly would have never thought that 10-15 people would be witnesses to this sort of attack that happened and that would not call the police…You can’t through a law tell people how it is that they are suppose to behave. I disagree with that. I think we would all agree that murder is a bad thing but we still have laws against murders. I think we would all agree that violent crimes are a bad thing but we still have laws that seek to that our values as a society are still protected—that’s what laws are suppose to do. I think with my legislation, all I’m saying is that a victim deserves the help of the community and my law doesn’t require anybody stepping in to the event. It doesn’t ask anyone to put themselves in harm way. It just says you need to call the police.
Post new comment