On June 8, 2021 the membership of the American Law Institute gave its final approval to a revision of the Model Penal Code’s chapter on Sexual Assault and Related Offenses. This project was initially authorized by the ALI Council in 2012. The appointed Reporters, Professors Stephen Schulhofer and Erin Murphy of the New York University School of Law, began work immediately, preparing drafts for discussion with the appointed project Advisors and the Members’ Consultative Group. As is normal with ALI projects, these groups included practicing attorneys, judges, and scholars who are experts in the subject. Portions of the project were presented to the full membership at the annual meetings in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. The ALI Council agreed on January 22 to recommend the membership’s final approval of the completed project. Tentative Draft Number 5 was then considered and approved by the Membership at the 2021 annual meeting held on June 8. The Reporters will now prepare the final published version reflecting the discussion at the Annual Meeting as well as editorial improvements.
The complete Tentative Draft, 600 pages long, addresses the substance of the full range of sexual assault crimes. It contains the Blackletter provisions setting forth the code’s statutory language for each section, official Comments interpreting and explaining each section, and Reporter’s Notes providing background and citations to sources relied upon by the Reporters in the draft. The original version of the Model Penal Code was published by the ALI in 1962. It was and remains highly influential. According to Wikipedia more than half the states enacted criminal codes that borrowed heavily from the MPC, and even courts in non-adopting states have been influenced by its provisions. It was a forward looking document. One important and influential contribution of the 1962 MPC was the removal of noncommercial sexual acts between consenting adults, such as sodomy, adultery and fornication, from the criminal law. In 2001, however, the Institute concluded that revision of some portions of the 50-year-old MPC had become necessary. This project, revising the portions of the MPC addressing sexual assault, is one of three separate revision projects on different portions of the code. The original MPC contained no provisions on a sexual offense registry; the inclusion of that topic in the MPC is among the most significant revisions to it now approved by the Institute.
The MPC’s registry provisions are contained in 11 sections. Including an official comment providing an Executive Summary, they are set forth in the final 120 pages of Tentative Draft No. 5. While the MPC adopts something called a registry, its substance departs significantly from existing registry laws, federal and state, as the Comments acknowledge. Key differences are:
- Many sexual offenses that are registrable in the federal and most state laws are not registerable under the MPC provisions, which provide that no offense is subject to registration other than those it specifies as registerable. Only these five offenses (as defined by other sections of the MPC) trigger a registration obligation:
- Sexual Assault by Aggravated Physical Force or Restraint.
- Sexual Assault by Physical Force, but only when committed after the offender had previously been convicted of a felony sex offense.
- Sexual Assault of an Incapacitated Person, but only when committed after the offender had previously been convicted of a felony sex offense.
- Sexual Assault of a Minor, but only when the minor is younger than 12 and the actor is 21 years old or older.
- Incestuous Sexual Assault of a Minor, but only when the minor is younger than 16.
- There is no public notification that individuals are on the registry, whether through a public website or any other means. Access to the registry is limited to law enforcement personnel. The knowing or reckless disclosure of registry information to others is a felony. .
- The maximum registration period for the small group who remain on the registry is 15 years, but those who do not re-offend, and comply with parole, probation, or supervised release conditions, are removed after ten years. Failure to register cannot be the basis of parole or probation revocation; it is punishable only as a misdemeanor offense.
- General rules that required location monitoring of persons convicted of a sexual offense are barred, as are most restrictions on residency, access to schools or the internet. Judges could impose such restrictions in particular cases, but only on persons currently required to register, and only upon an evidentiary showing that there are special circumstances in that particular case that justify it, and only for a limited period of time. In no case may a judge require public notification. Mandatory restrictions on employment applicable primarily to persons convicted of a sexual offense that are created by other state laws are not repealed by the MPC, but anyone subject to them may petition a court for relief from the employment bar.
The American Law Institute, established in 1923, is the leading independent organization in the United States producing scholarly work to clarify, modernize, and otherwise improve the law. The current Council of the ALI includes 7 members of the United States Courts of Appeal as well as Justices on the highest courts of California, Arizona, Texas, and New Jersey. The recommendations of the ALI Council become the official position of the Institute when (as with these revisions to the MPC contained in T.D. 5) they are adopted by the members, which consists of leading attorneys, law professors, and judges who have been nominated and elected to membership.
By adopting these significant revisions to the Model Penal Code, the ALI has planted an acorn that will one day grow into a mighty oak. We must be patient as that occurs. We must also ready ourselves for persuading Congress and our state legislatures to agree to these changes.
I may not live to see the downstream effects of ALI’s MPC revisions improve material conditions for California registrants. But I’m so glad history is moving in the right direction.
This is huge if it’s ever adopted (I doubt it due to America’s, historically vindictive nature). It makes totally sense, and it encourages good behavior since it allows ALL to see an end to years on the registry. Even they see this notion of it being “a right” to know of only where registrants live and only them is nonsense. The current registry is nothing more than sanctioned political persecution.
I’m not a lawyer but I think this is historical.
This is HUGE!!! I shall move to the first state that adopts the standards!!!
This. Is. Amazing. Thank you all for doing this!
This is all well and good, but it basically proposes to put registries back the way they were when they were first created. If that ever happens, it will only be a matter of time before legislatures start screwing around with them again and adding more crap to them, just like they did 10, 15, 20 years ago.
It’s remarkable that this proposed legislation, that is so far from what any states have and seems like a pipe dream to ever see enshrined in law, is actually close to what the original intent of registries was, decades ago, which itself was controversial, and is itself rarely seen in Western law. It’s amazing what a race to the bottom we’ve seen in American law since the barn door to registries was opened.
This is truly excellent! We must all be ready and willing to push legislatures to adopt these ALI proposals. They are a shining example of truth and justice successfully brought together for a better world.
A course correction to get the country back on the initial footing it was founded on and away from the direction is has been going. Thank you ALI!
This makes me happy. I might actually get to attend my daughter’s graduation one day.
Ok. I see that everyone is saying this great news and I believe that it is. Buttttt …. Now what? How do we see changes happening from this point forward? Do states still get to make harsh laws? Do I still have to stay registered in states that are lifetime even though my state is 15 years? Does every single law now have to be challenged? Does the federal government pass new amended laws and force states to cooperate? Is that even a possibility? How does one with knowledge in this chaos see the positive or optimistic changes for the future for us forced to register?
Not to be a Debbie Downer, but congress can’t even agree on:
1.a voting rights bill
2.equal privileges and rights for LGTBQ
3.gays in the military
4.a woman’s right to her own body
5.if 1/6 actually happened
See where I’m going with this?
It’s awesome that scholars agree that the registry is a farce in its current form, but scholars are not the people that write these laws. Look at the way Politicians treat Dr. Fauci, and he is considered by the entire world to be THE authority on infectious diseases. You can’t convince someone that “The Iliad” is a work of literary masterpiece if they can’t even read. That to me is what this is. The ALI is telling arrogant, self serving people that they have it all wrong, and they aren’t listening.
I do see California legislature as well as other progressive states giving this more weight than dare I say, Florida?
Time to hold these politicians accountable for the harm they have caused to individuals, families, communities and the country. The chickens are coming home to roost and now is the time to Stand up, Speak up, and Show up!! Time to put politicians in the pressure cooker of truth, Justice and accountability of their lies!!
One can only hope.
Is 1(d) above a typo?
I remember there being 6 registerable situations, one where is the victim was under 16 (not under 12) and the person was over 21.
Or was this changed between December 2020 and final approval?
Janice, are you able to comment how “assault” is defined in the above? Is the intent for it to be physical in all cases?
sounds like where I started 30 years ago in Cali , except this don’t offer life time registration , makes me feel hopeful , good feeling that
A bunch of people feel ALI is making a mistake on this change–and not for the reason one would reflexively think!
https://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/sites/default/files/ALI%20Letter%20on%20MPC%2C%20CHLP%202021.pdf
I just wonder how long it will take the states to adopt the new law. And if they will adopt the new law?
Sent this over to both Utah House and Senate Committees and the DOC over a week ago, no response. Crickets.
It’s so nice to have something positive with all of the potential and actual punitive legislation changes SOs have had to endure the past year. It has been very stressful, I think. Does anyone know if there are any challenges in California to SOs being able to serve on jury duty? If I am a full citizen, not on parole or probation, then this should be my right as a citizen. Don’t get me wrong, I hate jury duty. I just feel I am being labeled a sub-citizen for being one of the few people disqualified from this important part of citizenship.
Where can we get a copy of this report in full?
Will this be presented to the states legislatures? Or the DOJ?
Thank you so much Janice Bellucci, we need more people like yourself!