Pennsylvania House Bill HB116

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/14/25
• Refer: 1/14/25

Caption

In assault, further providing for the offense of aggravated assault.

Impact

If passed, HB116 would modify existing state laws related to assault, establishing more stringent penalties for those found guilty of attacking individuals with intellectual disabilities or autism spectrum disorders. The classification of such offenses as aggravated assault further emphasizes the state's commitment to protecting the rights and safety of these individuals. The bill's intent is to deter potential offenders by imposing harsher consequences for actions perpetrated against those who may be at a disadvantage due to their conditions.

Summary

House Bill 116 seeks to amend Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes specifically regarding the offense of aggravated assault. The bill introduces provisions that make it a crime to intentionally or knowingly cause bodily injury to individuals who are recognized as having an intellectual disability or an autism spectrum disorder. By categorizing such offenses under aggravated assault, the bill aims to enhance the legal protections for vulnerable groups, ensuring that assaults on individuals with these conditions are treated with greater severity within the legal framework.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding HB116 appears to be positive, particularly among advocacy groups that support the rights of individuals with disabilities. Proponents argue that the bill is a necessary step towards a more inclusive society where the safety of vulnerable populations is prioritized. However, there may still be concerns regarding the practical implications of enforcing such laws and how they will interact with existing legal definitions and protections.

Contention

While the bill receives broad support, discussions may reveal varying opinions on the definitions of 'intellectual disability' and 'autism spectrum disorder'. Some might argue that more clarity is needed to ensure fairness in enforcement, while others may raise concerns about the potential stigmatization of individuals with these conditions. It will be crucial for lawmakers to address any ambiguities in the language used in the bill to preempt challenges related to enforcement and interpretation.