By broadening the definition of lack of consent in sexual assault cases, this bill creates potentially significant legal precedents for how sexual offenses are prosecuted in California. The focus on sexually protective devices aims to address the complexities of consent in modern sexual relationships, particularly in situations where safety measures are agreed upon. Incorporating this provision may encourage more victims to come forward, knowing that their consent is legally enforceable in the presence of protective measures.
Assembly Bill No. 1997, introduced by Cristina Garcia, seeks to amend California's Penal Code by adding Section 261.8. This section specifies that in cases of specified sexual offenses, consent must be very clearly defined, especially when an agreement for sexual activity is contingent upon the use of a sexually protective device. If one party agrees to engage in sexual intercourse or contact only if such a device is used, and the other party intentionally removes or damages it without permission, this action constitutes a lack of valid consent.
There may be contention surrounding AB 1997 concerning the implications it has on individual rights and the nuances of consent. Some critics might argue that the bill raises challenges in terms of proving intent regarding the removal or damage of protections, which can be inherently subjective. Conversely, advocates of the bill emphasize the importance of reinforcing the notion that consent cannot be validly given if preconditions—such as the use of condoms or other protective devices—are violated during the act.