Letters

ACLU and sexual assault law

EDITOR: I'd like to clarify the ACLU's position on certain controversial aspects of House Bill 606.

The article "Sex Crimes Revised" improperly describes the ACLU as opposing the deletion of the phrase "against her will" in the present rape statute. In fact, the ACLU had no opposition at all to this deletion. The phrase "against her will" does indeed improperly focus the jury's attention on whether the victim resisted, rather than on whether the defendant forced the victim to submit to sexual acts. The ACLU suggested and supported adding language to the bill stating that the victim's lack of resistance should not be construed as consent to the sexual act.

The ACLU's opposition stemmed, rather, from the original bill's creation of the affirmative defense of consent. This would have shifted to the defendant the burden of proving that s/he did not commit the crime charged, by requiring him or her to prove lack of force. This would have been clearly unconstitutional, since the prosecution must always prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Although the ACLU still has concerns about some language in the law defining consent, the deletion of the affirmative defense met many of our most serious objections.

Nancy Bothne
American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois
Springfield

Sex and sensationalism

EDITOR: It was interesting to find Tom Littlewood's tirade against Rupert Murdoch for "pander(ing) to the lowest common denominator of public taste," and purveying "a sleazy blend of sex and sensationalism," in a magazine whose cover displayed the words "sex crimes" in big block type, over graphic descriptions of deviate sex acts.

John W. Whelan Jr.
Chicago

May 1984/Illinois Issues/5