We demystify what goes on behind the therapy room door. Join us on this voyage of discovery and co-creative conversations. This is The Therapy Show, behind closed doors podcast with Bob Cook and Jackie Jones. Welcome back to The Therapy Show behind closed doors with the wonderful Mr Bob Cook and myself Jackie Jones and in this episode we're going to be looking at what do you mean by relational therapy or what is relational therapy? What a good question and as you said that I heard a voice in my head saying well isn't all psychotherapy relational and I was thinking yeah I'm 72 and I trained in 1985 and I'm sure many of my and temporary colleagues will say well isn't all therapy relationship I mean you know I've been in therapy for years and decades and all relationship isn't isn't it and it's an interesting way to look at it because you see you know many many many therapists way would say they're relational therapists and to be a perfectly honest the next question needs to be what relationship you're talking about interesting are you talking about the relationship in the room between the therapist and client in 2023 yeah are you talking about the relationship between the therapist and the younger self in 1984 you know what you mean when you say relational therapists yeah it's a really important question you see if we go back in time let's say let's take 1950 and what's that 70 years ago what if I was born in 1950 so this is 70 years ago you know and you went to bookshops and if you could find any psychotherapy books or even psychoanalytical books or even therapy books about the new psychological therapies that were coming along and certainly psych analysis which was the flavor of the day from the beginning of the century they would all talk about the importance of the clout of the therapist or the analyst staying outside the relationship yeah it'd be completely opposite yeah now it's really important it would be completely opposite the early psychoanalysts believe that the therapist or the analyst was there to give interpretations and the only way they could have any neutral interpretations was stay outside the field of the you know of the analyst client picture in other words stay completely out in fact to the extent they stood behind well the person was on a couch in the early days weren't they yeah and the person was behind them because they couldn't even see them so it was all about staying out of relationship yeah if you went down I live in Manchester if I went down into some psychotherapy shops in Manchester in 2023 most books if not all books on psychotherapy would be about how the therapist stays in the relationship and how the relationship is between the therapist and the client is the vehicle for cure there's been a dramatic shift in the last century there are still therapy modalities where you don't take yourself into the therapy room so to speak you know you don't share personal experiences even if they're relevant and things it's now onto a different when you're the second point the first point I agreed with you which is there are modalities exactly that you've just said which talk about the therapist you know not bringing their own history and self into the relationship you know that that that is true definitely but you see since 1993 I would say I was thinking when a lot of books started to talk about the importance of the relationship as the major curative factor yeah and it's sort of the books started again or the theories started to change as we hit them hit the century we're now and there's many many many many books all talk about relationship and that whole period since 1999 mid 1996 called the relational turn so most of you started to talk about the importance of relationship between the therapist and client even if it's about how the therapist shares some of themselves in the relationship but it would be about using the relationship as the cure to vehicle for cure so there is many many many books talking about counter-transference talking about reactive counter-transference talking about you know what's the therapist should or shouldn't share but it would all be about strengthening the relationship in the service of cure not being totally outside the relationship yeah so when people come to have relational psychotherapists they're talking about or should be talking about the idea that the relationship is the major vehicle for cure the relationship between therapist and client yeah now that's why I said right at the beginning which is which relationship you're talking about so are you talking about the relationship in here and now and therefore you never going to deal with the relationship between the therapist and the younger self you always just have an adult-to-adult relationship it's certainly not my idea of therapy for me personally I understand for many other people like CPT for example would be about staying in the present and many of the counseling folks as well but I come from a developmental perspective so I would be working with the younger self because that's where I think the real healing is yeah so you've got a relationship between the therapist and the younger self then haven't you yeah relationship between the therapist and the client both at the appropriate ages yeah yeah so it's it's multi-dimensional as well into this like there's a heap load of relationships there yeah so I always head in transactionalist terms towards the child-eager state so I always think developmentally yeah so I'm not in the game of you know past timing or cures in an adult-to-adult relationships it's about healing the trauma thinking developmentally working the healing in the past so they can be different in the present that might lead to a robust adult relationship whether you're both the probably at the same age there but it but it's not but you need to get there yeah so for me I think developmentally so mostly when I used to work the relationship with the younger self that's the relationship I wanted to get to yeah so would you I would call myself a developmental relational psychotherapist when I stayed started off in 1985 I would simply call myself a transactionalist yeah in 90s in the psychotherapy world in this country and and America and sweeping into Europe was the idea of what as I've just said is the relationship is the curative factor where is it now that's interesting isn't it because I think I don't think you'd meet a therapist that would say that the relationship is really important on the road to cure with the client even psychoanalysts who believe in interpretation free association would also nowadays talk about relationship is a really important factor they probably wouldn't go as far the next step and say that it was the exclusive factor for cure but they would pay a lot more attention to it than it did 70 years ago yeah it's just you know the way that therapy is is delivered now is changed massively from you know even I don't know ten years ago you know people have therapy via text now I personally would find it really difficult to build a relationship with somebody over text yes and also you've got the huge rise of online therapy yeah yeah rise of assumed therapy yeah use rise of at least with zoom therapy like it's like us now we record these via zoom I can see your body language I can hear the tone of your voice I can yeah I can get a lot more feeling for what's going on even though we're not you know in person in the room but via a text it's so open to misinterpretation I couldn't agree with you more I don't like therapy by online medium no don't like therapy by text or phone calls you know I think face-to-face therapy is you know more important having said all that lot so I've said that so yeah that's my thing most therapy is about projections in other words you sit in front of somebody whether it's on zoom whether it's by text by and we project on to the screen our own history yeah you watch Love Island for example which is a reality television program which I don't particularly care for much for lots of different reasons oh let's pick another one we watch the Traders which is another reality program or whatever pose we want to watch we watch the x-factor we watch this we pick a little pollock or whatever we want to look on history anything you like and we project on to the screen really on history about what we've decided about other people in the world yeah yeah he's good he's bad he's he's not and whatever yeah and it reflects our own history yeah so there is that part to think about it the world of projections yeah relationships in general are very confusing when you think about it they're confusing and they really represent our past family and our past decisions about ourself in the world so when we talk about relational psychotherapy are you a relational psychotherapist like we're talking this podcast then I can really understand the swing you know beginning the century or psychotherapy in general to the relationship what happens between a therapist and client is so important for cure in curative method you know curative factors so if you have a therapist that doesn't engage that stays you know way out of the relationship yeah but never shares anything about themselves that stays as an anonomer nice figure I wouldn't call that relationship relational psychotherapy in the way it's portrayed now in 2023 no I can't imagine how that would work to be honest having been trained to the way that I was what you were trained relational yeah in other words you were trained in the relationship being an important vehicle for change yeah absolutely the first day in the way you trained in a lot to a therapist to train and a lot of other therapists for trade is the first step is building up the relationship between the therapist and the client and if you're getting a robust relationship with therapist and client and a trusting relationship and a safe one in the secure relationship between therapist and client then therapy is more likely to happen yeah and I say this so many times when people ask me about you know what modality of you know therapy is best and yes I'm you know I'm passionate about transactional analysis and I think it is the best one but I always say it's more about it being a good fit it's more about the relationship that you have with the person in the room the modality to me comes second to that yeah and me and I do all the assessments as you know the Institute pass many members of the public onto therapists and I always say to them my part of my job here is to match you up because therapy is always more effective yeah actually have the same frame of reference or at least get on with the client yeah so the therapist because then therapy is more likely I I believe be more effective because the relationship is more complete yeah yeah 100% and that is why the swing to you know relationship being the vehicle for cure has happened across many modalities over the last 20 years I mean you can sit there saying exactly what you just said is that you know it's important to have a good fit and there's very few modalities I think now in 2023 that wouldn't recognize the cure to fact of an effective relationship yeah yeah it has to be a two-way process in my head you know I don't know how you can build empathy or feel empathy with another person unless there's a relationship there somehow that's right and it also demands something very challenging I think of the therapist because if they're going to be a true relational psychopathist it demands the challenge which I think is quite cute for a lot of people who go into this business they need to know themselves yeah now that might be very challenging for people listening but if you're going to promote relational psychotherapy as the major vehicle for effective cure then you really need to know yourself because you're entering into a relationship which can easily be contaminated by your own prejudices yeah which we all have yeah which relation is to be healthy yes we all have them but you see if you're not if you haven't spent some time reflecting and having your own therapy then you may not be aware of what you bring into a relationship without being aware of them we don't even give ourselves the chance to change or become I'm going to say more healthy on this for the service of the client yeah we can contaminate the whole process by bringing in our own negative prejudices yeah yeah which again I know we mentioned it a lot of the times but this is one of the other things that I loved about transactional analysis is that for four years of training you have four years of personal therapy so at the end of it you're very well aware of yourself that's why I struggle with the BACP position and that is the BACP position has now gone to a place you don't have to have any reflection on yourself and become a counselor I know this is about psychotherapy I mean that's the name of this podcast but you know I still go that position and I think that anybody in this field needs to be understanding their own contaminations because otherwise they'll easily bring it into the relationship and that could easily end up in an unhealthy relationship which that is difficult because that isn't going to be the vehicle for cure then is it no yeah and it's again using your you know wonderful phrase it is a process and it's a slow process at that well certainly if you're going to be a developmental relationship like that was the way I've just talked about it which is sing healing back where the trauma began so you're going to have to head back then it is going to be a long process if you're going to stay in the here and now looking at behavioural focus solution issues for some people may want to do I don't want to start getting into denigrating that type of therapy then it's a different type of therapy still think it would be good to have a effective relationship though yeah yeah that's going to be the vehicle for cure yeah yeah there has to be some sort of a connection I believe so I think it's a level of some whether it is an adult to adult but there has to be a relationship or a connection in some way yeah see the very first analysts going back 100 odd years ago now was built on a parent child transactional dialogue in other words the analyst was the expert yeah the analyst was a super parent if you want to put that way the analyst was the person that would make the interpretations and have the monopolisation on the truth yeah a very parent child led which do I have been developed transaction analysis in many ways it wasn't the only reason because you want to promote an adult to adult relationship to do the developmental work if you like but have a yeah a parent child transactional in a dialogue and which is totally different yeah which when you started talking about this like that's something I wrote down was the okay I'm okay you're okay whereas I see the you know the good old fashioned couch scenario as you know the therapist is okay and the client isn't okay they need fixing they're broken and you know the therapist is one with all the answers yeah I don't think there was much good about that even though you thought that was a quote or phrase of yours but I don't think there was much good about that now for the seriously psychotic patients maybe that's a different story yeah the neurotic well and for the sort of psychotherapy that we're talking about nowadays it's far better to come from an adult adult place even if you are going to head into the developmental world yeah yeah so it's interesting when people want to have a relational therapist because I usually do ask by the well what do you mean by relationships therapist now that flummoxon because they are often asked that but you know it's an interesting question back again yeah absolutely it's the same when people say they're integrated therapists which is what we're talking about next time Bob so don't talk too much about that okay it's like well what do you mean by that yeah I'll lead to this podcast but they're interesting questions yeah absolutely and questions that I do think it's good to to discuss because they are phrases that are bandied around an awful lot and for the listeners you know to talk a little bit more in depth about what all these kind of mean and the different modalities that are out there and even you know the like you were saying the phases that psychotherapy goes through going back from the 50s to the 70s to the 90s to where we are now it's evolved yes we've you know we're in a completely different arena in the mental in the service of mental health yeah and 150 years ago it's by definition you know it's changed beyond all recognition I think the service of mental health so that's certainly too and with it comes the evolution of psychotherapy and where that's has taken us yeah very interesting so what we're going to be talking about next time Bob do we mean by integrative psychotherapy oh another one of my favourite subject because you know I am an integrative psychotherapist I caught myself a developmental relational psychotherapist from an integrative transaction analysis position that is a mouthful absolutely that's a hell of a tagline and then all that underneath it well it's been a human person yes so until next time Bob thank you so much thank you thank you very much bye you've been listening to the therapy show behind closed doors podcast we hope you enjoyed the show don't forget to subscribe and leave us a review we'll be back next week with another episode


Good morning and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee and we are looking this morning at age 183 a bill regarding crimes and sexual assaults. And we're going to start with the bills lead sponsor representative Sarah Kobahansis and welcome. And thank you so much. Thank you so much for having me this morning. I appreciate the opportunity to help you understand a little bit of the background that brings age 183 to your table today. This bill, the origins of this really date back three or four years now to the time when I was working on sexual harassment prevention legislation. And I had a young person come to me and say, thank you so much for the work you're doing on sexual harassment, but there's so much more we need to do on sexual assault and here's why. And, and from that moment, I've had, you know, sort of in the back of my mind that we need to come back to this issue. But what really brings me here today brings me not just as a citizen legislator, but as a former teacher of high school age students a former coach and a parent and the experiences that I've had over the last year. The pandemic of being able to really slow down. Take a seat around the fire pit outside and listen to the experiences of the young adults in my life really led me to, to the understanding that there are some really disturbing cultural trends that we need to recognize we need to bring into the open we need to talk about.  Some of the conversations I have had over the last year. Report that there are, you know, there are sexual conquests that that that young people keep track of of how many partners they've had those conquests have led to the lines of consent being blurred and and have led to a lot of really disturbing outcomes for some of the young people in my life. And so the answer to this, this conundrum is really multifaceted and that's, that's what you'll see when, when Michelle walks you through the details of the bill. But I think it's helpful just to orient ourselves to some of the statistics. I have some national statistics but also some Vermont based statistics. Nationally, if there are, you know, for every 1000 sexual assaults, only 230 of those are actually reported to the police of the 230 that are reported to police. Only 46 reports lead to an arrest. Nine of those cases are ultimately referred to prosecution. Five of those cases on average will will lead to a conviction and fewer than those five convicted will ever serve time in jail. And and so that disturbing lack of justice is really one of the things that was most most apparent to me in the conversations that I have had over the last year with with young people who have experienced sexual assault. And the Vermont statistics I think that are helpful to understand and disturbingly the Vermont youth risk behavior survey which I'm sure this committee has had opportunity to, to look at from time to time, 9% of female students in Vermont report being physically forced to have intercourse that they did not want to have 9% that is a huge number.  And there are some really disturbing reasons for that, not the least of which is the sense on the part of survivors of sexual assault that nothing good will come of it. And so I think it's incumbent upon us to take some time to understand the impact that this has on the young people in our lives.  There's just there's four main goals of the bill. The first being modernizing our consent laws to be sure that that we move, move beyond the myth that rape happens when a stranger jumps out from behind a bush and grab and really recognize that many, many of these unwanted sexual encounters are happening because of the presence of intoxicating substances. We need to improve our data collection. Alright, because I gave you those national statistics about how many sexual assaults turn into reports to law enforcement will turning into investigations turning into charges filed. We need to understand where every step along the way where this system breaks down. We need to make sure that we expand access to to forensic nursing in all corners of the state so you'll see a small appropriation in this bill, just in recognition that there are certain primary care settings where it's difficult for a survivor to access a rape kit. And also, finally, and perhaps most importantly for the future. I think we need to re reintroduce the concept of campus sexual harm task force. We need to ask our college campuses around the state to engage in a long term effort to to educate and prevent sexual assault to help young people on college campuses understand what consent means. And, and then we need to take those best practices and we need to recognize that that these activities start when these kids are in high school. So that is sort of the overview of what the bill does. And I really look forward to working with you on this and happy to take any questions. Any questions from the members of the committee or comments. Go ahead Barbara. And then Selena. Thank you for introducing this bill. This has been an issue that has been important to me since I started being a legislator. Since I represent part of UVM and part of sampling college. We've had the opportunity, the misfortune and of hearing people's bad experiences and one comment that somebody said to me that just keeps ringing in my ear that I'm hoping this bill can help address is the legal process was worse than the sexual assault, because it felt like a very public and blaming version of it. And this person ended up having this happen again which apparently is pretty common it once you've been assaulted there's a greater chance that you will be sexually assaulted and forget which national group gave that statistic, but that person refused to take action again, because the reality is as you said so few people end up getting prosecuted and so it's like a double whammy. So, thank you for your efforts with this and I'm eager to hear how we can address the, the horror for people who not only don't understand the system find it intrusive, but then feel left in the dark and abandoned. Thank you for, for bringing that up. And, and while my heart, when I think back to the conversations that I've had with with young people who've experienced sexual assault, my heart wants to fix it all right now, because I know the traumatic trauma that this has been for many young people in my life. But I also know that if we want to, to arrive at the right solution. Long term and globally, we need to understand the problem better. And that's why this bill takes modest steps towards modernizing our consent laws. But it also, more importantly, requires us to start collecting that data so that we can hear from from the legal system every step along the way and understand where these breakdowns are happening. And that's, that's how we're going to get to the point where we no longer have survivors of sexual assault saying, there's no way, why would you ever put yourself through that. Next bootstrap yourself, figure out how to process whatever you went through and don't tell us all. And that's heartbreaking because I've seen the financial impact, I've seen the emotional impact, the long term impact on people who, who have not been able to experience justice after having been wronged is just really disturbing. Madam chair, Selena is up next. Great. Great. And thank you so much. Sorry. Sorry about my technical difficulties. Okay, Selena. Great. Thank you. Thank you. I don't have a question. Just a comment just really wanted to thank you representative Copeland Hanses for introducing this bill and offering the opportunity to co-sponsor. This is my legislative district includes a huge number of college students, UBM, as does representative Rachel since UBM students and Champlain students and this is just a concern that I've heard about again and again. You know, why last by any of them we did advance a campus sexual harm task force and I really appreciate the way you've built on some of that work and one of the big themes in that group. You know, we, I think we were able to just kind of scratch the surface of getting started in that group and so I appreciate your efforts to kind of carry that forward but one but also one of the things we heard was just the challenges and consistency across campuses and and particularly with really different definitions of consent operating from campus to campus and so I think the work that you've done here with Michelle and stakeholders to really get more clarity stronger language around what constitutes consent is. It's really important in all in all settings and just just really want to voice appreciation for your thoughtful, your thoughtful work on this and your, your personal connection to this issue. Thank you. Right. Thank you Selena and I echo that as well. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay, great. So I'm going to turn to Michelle unless sorry of anything else to add at this point. Great. Great, right. Thank you so much. Okay, Michelle, if you could do a walkthrough please I hope everybody has has what they need terms of the bill. Yep. So we're just working with the bill is introduced so hopefully everybody has that and I'm not going to share the screen today so I hope that's okay if I'm going too fast or you lose your place let me know and I'll slow down and try to get you really reoriented. So represent Copeland haunts did a great job just kind of outlining what's in the bill for you so she made my job a little easier there and I know we have a lot of witnesses this morning and so I'm just going to do kind of a broad, you know overview and I will go with line by line and and go through all the sections but I'll try to I'm not going to get too deep into some of the elements and things like that because you know how that can go sometimes and can take up some time so I'll be here all morning and can help answer questions and I'll be listening to the witness testimony and we'll circle back. And certainly one of the issues that's going to be in there is mens rea and we've talked a little bit about that and got into that subject on the on 18 and so we're going to be kind of revisiting those kinds of issues and I think that will be one of the topics for kind of discussion in the witnesses. So, so starting on on section one. So we're dealing in chapter 72, which is a sexual assault chapter of title 13 in your crimes and criminal procedure. And the first changes in section one under definitions and you'll see on line nine. There is the existing definition of consent. And so you see there it currently means words or actions by a person indicating a voluntary agreement to engage in a sexual act. And this adds that it's a knowing and voluntary agreement to engage in a sexual act so you have that added piece there that it's that the person is is has knowledge of the sexual act and what's going on it's not just the voluntary piece. The addition of the definitions on lines 12 and 14 so developmental disability and psychiatric disability. These are technical changes so the statutes. A lot of the statutes in this chapter. Haven't been updated necessarily in certain ways and so there was some kind of antiquated language. You know what we often refer to is, you know, is changing terms to more respectful language and my understanding from the, from the disability is that these are the proper terms there so this should not be changing it substantively, but should just be focused on using the correct terms now. So moving on to section two. So this is our statute on sexual assault so starting on subsection one. So right now no person shall engage in the sexual act with another person and then right now it's there's an added element of having to prove to compel the other person to participate in the sexual act so that is struck here.  So we'll go through and there's a specifics consent statute that we'll look at that will further kind of outline consent in this particular instance it's not saying that you have to have affirmative verbal consent here, but we'll go through and look for the consent language and a little bit. The second one is by threatening or co or coercing the other person. Third by placing the other person in fear that any person will suffer imminent bodily injury, or for when the person knows or reasonably should know that the person is asleep unconscious or otherwise unaware that the sexual act is occurring. Okay, and I will just give you a little peek into the big debate on this bill I think in one of the issues is going to be the whether the person knows or reasonably should know so using that kind of reckless standard on the should know, and whether or not prosecutors have to either prove that the person let's say if, if subdivision for is looking at a circumstance where someone was substantially addicted to drugs or alcohol, you know, should the actor have known that that person was unaware of what was occurring, you know, or do they have to prove that that that the actor actually knew. Moving on to subsection B, and I'll just note here is that there's definitely some overlap in the provisions under this section, and that was my choice from a drafting standpoint because I wanted to make sure that through revising the section. I didn't unintentionally lose something that was in the existing statute because the sponsors were looking to expand and so, you know, I am your drafts person and your legislative lawyer or whatever but I'm not, you know, out there litigating these types of cases and stuff and so I think we can narrow it down a little bit because I think there is some overlap in these and I just mentioned that because sometimes it'll it'll seem a little bit like wait didn't we mention that up there so I just, I was trying to be careful about not unintentionally kicking something out so under existing law in subsection B, no person shall engage in a sexual act with another person and impair substantially the ability of the other person to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing drugs for intoxicants without the knowledge or will of the other person so that's a situation where you kind of think of you know somebody slipping something in a drink right to incapacitate the other person and engage in a sexual act with them. I that's just rewritten a little bit so that it's no person shall administer any alcohol drugs or other intoxicants to another person without the person's knowledge or against their will. And while the person is impaired by the alcohol drugs or intoxicants engage in a sexual act with that person. And that's not something that is specifically addressed in the current statute and this is no person shall engage in a sexual act with another person when the other person is incapable of consenting to the sexual act due to a impairment by alcohol drugs or other intoxicants and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the by the actor or they're incapable of consenting to the sexual act due to a psychiatric or developmental disability and that condition is known or should reasonably be known by the actor. So that one is addressing the issue of the person is impaired or either by alcohol drugs intoxicants or they have a disability that impairs their judgment with regard to being able to consent, but it doesn't require that the actor. In the case of intoxication actually administered the intoxicants to the other person. So that's where there's a difference and with subdivision one. Top of page four F and G I just put that in there there's no changes to the penalties and any of this. I just wanted you to be able to see what the existing penalties are for these offenses. Section three is where we go to the consent statute and I looked at the legislative history for this. And other than a technical language tweak done I think on the actually on the respectful language bill several years ago. This statute has not been amended or updated or anything since it was originally enacted in 1977. So there was the adoption of act 51 in 1977 that puts most of this sexual assault chapter together and we've had you've added to it over the years. But I just mentioned that in terms of the language, you know, because it's good to kind of know what's the legislative history here have you guys been updating it consistent consistently in the last several years have you not taken a look at it and I can say that I think in, you know, the 20 plus years I've been here I, I actually don't recall ever even working in this particular statute so I don't know that we've ever. I mean, Eric might have taken something up or whatever but I don't recall a discussion specifically around the consent issues, you know, for a while. So, so you see in a prosecution for crime under the chapter so it's applying to the whole chapter applying to sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault. You'll see the existing law says lack of consent may be shown without proof of resistance. And so there's a small language tweak there that changing it to more closely followed the federal definition which is lack of verbal or physical resistance does not constitute consent and so just saying that basically the fact that somebody you know physically fight back or scream, you know, or things like that does not constitute consent. The second one is an expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent. So if somebody says no, that means there is no consent. Submission resulting from the use of force threat of force or placing another person in fear does not constitute constitute consent. Subdivision for a current or previous dating social or sexual relationship by itself or the manner of dress of the person involved with the accused and the conduct that issue does not constitute consent. Again, a little bit overlapping with another section that I'm not amending in here with regard to evidence and kind of the rate shield law but it's kind of belts belts and suspenders here. Subdivision five a sleeping or unconscious person is unable to consent. And then subdivision six you'll see there's a lot there under existing law with regard to determining when people have are incapable of consenting and the main change in this particular subdivision is changing it from who knows like a knowing center to new or reasonably should have known so the first one being that the person is deemed to have acted without the consent of the other person. If the actor knew or recently should have known that the other person was mentally incapable of understanding the nature of the sexual act. So I just want to mention is it this applies to L and L as well so these standards which is in another chapter. The second one is the actor knew or reasonably should have known that the other person was not physically capable of resisting or declining consent to the act. Third is the person the actor knew or recently should have known that the other person was unaware that the sexual act was being committed. Again that's kind of like the instance of someone being intoxicated and out of it and not being aware of what's really going on around them. Fourth is the person knew or recently should have known that the other person was mentally incapable of resisting or declining to consent to the act because of a psychiatric or developmental disability. So the person knew or recently should have known that the other person was incapable of making a knowing and voluntary decision to engage in the sexual act because they were impaired by alcohol drugs or intoxicants. So that's it with regard to the amendments to the statutory language with regard to consent I'm going to move on now if it's okay to section four and the data collection. And so this again this may need some tweaking and I think it'll be helpful to hear from the witnesses about the best way to go about collecting this this data. But we wanted to kind of get the outline there and talk about the kinds of things that the general somebody's interested in collecting. So on July 24 July 1 of this year, every state county municipal law enforcement agency and every constable who has law enforcement authority shall begin to collect data on the following the first one being the number of domestic and sexual violence cases reported to the agency or the constable. So I think at the number of domestic and sexual violence cases the agency or constable refers to a state's attorney or the attorney general for potential charges so how many cases are investigated by that law enforcement agency and then how many are subsequently referred to a prosecutor. The second one is on or before September 1 of next year and then annually thereafter, every state county municipal law enforcement agency and constable who has law enforcement authority is required to report the data that they are collecting in subdivision one they're required to report it to BCIC. And then subsection B is on or before July 1 of this year judiciary shall begin to collect information on the following the number of domestic and sexual violence cases charged the nature of the charge and the disposition of those cases that is something that you know may be available now and the question is this you know what's the best way to aggregate that information and get that to you that might be something through crime that you don't know for whatever but the idea is that you're going to have the information. You'll see in subdivision two at the top of page seven that they're going to be reporting the data to BCIC as well. The date is not later than December 1 2023 and annually thereafter BCIC shall aggregate by county the data that's that's an A and B and report that data to the General Assembly and post the data on its website so that it's accessible to the public. Okay. In section five. This is the intercollegiate sexual violence Prevention Council that Sarah spoke about. This is the result of there was a name of the group so there was the legislature in 2019 past act 77 and created a task force on campus sexual harm. The report came out last year about a year ago and one of its main recommendations was the creation of a council like this and so this is based on that report. So you see that online 12 subsection a creates the council for the purpose of a coordinated response to campus sexual harm. There's a long list of folks who have the experience either working with the issue of sexual violence or or people or their education folks. So you've got the long list of people there who would be on the council. In section C, the council duties are starting online 15. So they're responsible for interdisciplinary planning and information sharing to support sexual violence prevention programs on every college campus in Vermont. They're required to do an annual review of data collected from climate surveys on sexual violence on campuses in Vermont.  They're going to be staffed by the network against domestic and sexual violence. Do you have a report due on or before December? Huh, I just have December there, I guess. I probably I'll pick a date or you guys don't know what do you want to do but I guess I just put December it was probably supposed to be December for something. And annually there after council has to report to the general assembly with a summary of what they've been doing and any recommendations for you with regard to legislative action. So the rest is just kind of housekeeping logistics how it works with regard to compensation and things like that. Section six, there's two appropriations the first one is $13,000 for the network for the purpose of staffing the council. And then the second one is to is $40,000 to the Center for Crime Victim Services to be used in the forensic nursing program so that they can expand their services from because right now it's just in hospital emergency rooms that these types of exams are done. And they want to be able to expand those out beyond hospitals to primary care providers and others especially in areas where they're more rural so that if you have a sexual assault survivor they don't need to drive to three hours to get to an ER to be able to have that exam but they can go to someone locally and so that's a $40,000 appropriation to expand that program. And then the effective date is this July. Great. Thank you. Thank you so much Michelle. That's very, very clear and helpful. It's great. Committee members any questions not seeing any hands but up there we go. Well, go ahead. Thank you. Going back to page five. Let me get there myself. So going back to page five where we're talking about new or reasonably should have known. With that cover and an aggressor who is themselves intoxicated, because I think in a lot of occasions where a victim potential victim is being applied with with alcohol or drugs. So I just wanted to make sure that the language and question wouldn't provide someone with being able to use a defense that they were intoxicated and were unable to reasonably process. I think that's an excellent question and I don't necessarily have an answer for you on that I think that that's going to be one of the things that we flesh out and discuss through the process of this of taking testimony on this one.  So I think that's one of that's one of the tricky issues with this, with this type of these types of charges so I don't have a great answer for you necessarily on that one I think. But I think it'll be a part of the discussion, I think that we're really going to focus on. Okay, thank you. Sure. Thank you. Can hear you. I don't know if you've ever sounded better. I'm sorry to lower my hand representative, not covered the exact same question that I was concerned about a possible defense and I appreciate his question is concerned so, and I guess we're going to be addressing so thank you. Great. Thank you. Anybody else committee members. Good books time to raise your hands or jump in. Not seeing anybody else. Great. Thank you so much, Michelle. Great. Appreciate it. Okay, like to please welcome Chief Brian Pete. Good morning. Morning. Nice to see you. Good morning. Welcome. Well, thank you so much. Well, I can, I really appreciate the opportunity to be here. And I can and reviewing specifically, I believe it was section four for data collection. I would just advise or recommend clear definitions on the data sets. We can make sure that we can avoid a garbage in garbage out scenario. And that because we want to make sure that the quality of information that we're, that we're bringing in is going to provide you with the information you need to make the decisions going forward. And it also allows us and gives us additional time we need to make sure we have that time to build structures for our record management systems, universal reporting systems as well. So I would also recommend that even though I know that the data collection is specific to this bill itself is that to continue or consider broadening the scope of the data. So that, like, like right now this is a very, this is a, this is a very important thing, but other things that we can look at going down the road that we that we can anticipate that we're going to want to collect data on.  Consider possibly looking at the crime research group to collect the data. I know that it says in there that the thick, but I think the crime research group also does data collection within the state again and please forgive me if I'm incorrect, but I'm still trying to learn the layout of Vermont itself, and then just potentially the clearinghouse is essays or stage attorney's offices as well as police departments that we need to again defining the data that we want to collect a type of data. So that we make sure that our numbers are the same that there's not going to be a discrepancy and reporting numbers between the state's attorney's offices and the respective police departments. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. So, very, very helpful. Thank you. Other parts of the bill that you that you wish to testify on. No, ma'am I think there are other folks that are on the call that probably that have definitely a lot of more information pertaining to the law enforcement presence but I do want to say that that personally I think that this is something that's very much needed when I was in Little Rock and in Las Vegas as part of the rape crisis centers of volunteering to do that type of work and it's, it's, you know, if this is a very important work. So, I just definitely leave it at that it's just extremely important work so thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. And if there are any questions I can answer, I will be more than happy and willing to do so. Great. Thank you. Thank you so much. It's always good to see you. Thank you. Let's see. Not seeing any hands but again I'll give folks a few seconds to reach out or guess not great. Right. Thank you. Take care. Thank you very much. Lieutenant John McCallum. I believe you're here I see a John sees that. Yes, I'm here ma'am. Okay, wonderful. Welcome. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you very much for having me be part of this committee. I'm simply here just to convey Commissioner Sherling's position on the bill. The commissioner wasn't available today, but he would like an opportunity to meet with the committee. If that's possible. And overall, the bulk of the bill appears sensible. The content the wording appears sensible enhancing protections and services for victims of domestic and sexual violence is a good endeavor. Commissioner would just like to have a little more discussion with the mandate concerning the data collection, I believe it's section four.  Commissioner would like an opportunity to talk a little bit about his modernization strategy, which within that includes a new statewide record management system, which would be used by all all agencies in the state. There's a wide RMS that would be essentially able to collect the information, the data, the statistics that the committee is speaking about and interested in having the commissioner can obviously speak more to the benefits of the, the vast data collection and reporting capabilities that it has. But just wanting to discuss if it needs to be a mandate, or simply having it be available upon request for whatever data or statistics, any group or committee is interested in having. And the new RMS system will be able to produce any of the statistical reports, such as I think these data sets that the committee is interested in having. And that is all I need to provide insight on, I believe. If there are any questions regarding the information I provided but you know, thank you. Thank you very much. It's helpful. I do see that the commissioner did just join us so we certainly can hear from him as well. Okay. Any questions from committee. Seeing any commissioner you're welcome to testify or if you want to continuing continue listening that's that's fine too but I do see that you're here and I do want to acknowledge that. Madam chair apologize for being so late had COVID calls and testimony on the capital bill just ended a moment ago actually hasn't ended I just jumped off a moment ago. I think I may I don't have full context of your discussion at this point. So to weigh in for the record, Mike, Charlie and commissioner public safety and I do have an extensive background in in sex crime investigations having been both an investigator and director at the Chittin unit for special investigations for I wish I could remember how many years a number six I think I think before I go back to listening mode. Relative to the data collection point of this. I think that was the main reason that I wanted to at least be on with you for a bit this morning to flag as a reminder for the committee something we started talking about last year, which is, we are now. We have a contract in place and are beginning the deployment of a statewide computer a dispatch and records management system that will enable us to much more swiftly and accurately collect and report on a wide variety of data. It's my hope that we move away from directing individual components of data to be collected and reports to be generated and move toward a more comprehensive rubric of public safety in particular leading the development of data dashboards and reports and open data that people can analyze on a host of topics across all of the information that's available through that new system which will is actually online in about half of the agencies and has been for a number of years and the other half and the state police will be moving to that system in July of this year. Thank you. Committee members or representative Copeland Hansis a sponsor if you have any questions. Selena. Yeah, I really, really appreciate the work that's happening to create a company, you know, comprehensive kind of open access to all kinds of data around public safety. I, I very much understand what you're asking there, but I guess I just have a question about, you know, if we were to eliminate the mandate for this, like how then how would we have an assurance that this data would be that this particular data would be collected and if Rose give her a minute to see if she comes back. I believe the if she can hear us or not. Let me, let me reach out to her to see. I think my, my connection dropped there. Exactly reconnected which is impressive. I think I'd started to say put a pin in the data component. This time next year, ask us to come in and show for you what data is available via the new system to track these kinds of events, and then begin to, to work from that as a starting point to inform. So that's one of the things that we should do. Okay. Thank you, Selena, you. Yeah, I'm back. I really apologize. I think I, you know, I cut the gist of a commissioner's response. So thank you for that. Okay. All right, so you're good. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else. Tom. Thanks commissioner. For whatever reason what's going through my mind that you know I realize it's going to be, you know, easier to share data. Maybe you'll have it all in one place for us but is there, is there any reason or is it capable of connecting to out of state. Just going through my mind because I mean borders are just an imaginary line in a sense and I didn't know if there's any benefit to that or if it, if it would happen to, you know, connecting to other networks. The short answer is it does not the federal government has experimented with a justice exchange standard and a number of times over the last decade, each of those efforts has been not fruitful. Probably the best way to put it. In terms of data sharing across states the primary way that that is done is through a time tested in a robust system to share to share criminal histories and criminal charges through the National Crime Information Center, which is what the Vermont crime information center exists in large part to do. But that only shares information about arrests and convictions that have not been otherwise eradicated through expungement or other means. It doesn't share the 85 or 90% of other events that law enforcement's responding to that may not yield a criminal charge and with sex offenses in particular. We're not always able to get to a threshold of probable cause but when you weave together one event that has been reported with another event that has been reported, sometimes that puts you over the line and and you're able to bring a charge so being able to track those. It would be beneficial to be able to track those across borders as well but that is a bit of a challenge. Thank you. Great. Anybody else. Okay, great. Thank you very much commissioner appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Okay, it's good to Rebecca Turner from the defender general's office. Good morning. Welcome. Good morning. Can you hear me. Yes, yes. Good. All right, I'm hopefully I won't have the computer problems on my end. Good morning for the record. My name is Rebecca Turner. I'm the head of the appellate division of the office of the defender general. And I've been an appellate defender here in Vermont since 2007. And then took on the supervisor role in 2015. He had reviewing this bill and getting the preview from Michelle child and reading the purpose section. I commend the endeavor to. Attempt to clarify this area of law specifically consent. And the issues of consent in the sexual assault statute. And this area of the law is indeed a need of clarification. Spoken from the position as an appellate attorney before the Supreme Court, who let me litigate these issues over and over and over again. And so this bill comes with a lot of history and decisions by the Vermont Supreme Court. And by way of the introduction this morning, there was a point there haven't been a lot of legislative amendments to the statute and I would just like to point out to this committee that sexual assault of course is a common law offense so we bring with it. So much of that history and that's reflected by how our court has treated and have so much of how we understand these essential assaults have come through through the decisions. And that by way of introduction, I also wanted to add that when I went through the language of some of the proposed new language as to what should or shouldn't be consent. And then the negative, a lot of that does come from the decisions from the Supreme Court already, but much of the language here in the statute does not. And so I read this as greatly expanding the breath of what type of conduct or what constitutes lack of consent. And I want to make sure that the committee is aware that that is moving in an direction where I think is the opposite of the intent of it which is to clarify this area I think by broadening. What means consent here just adds to the confusion confusion in the criminal context of course is not just that it litigation becomes more complicated here we have a serious felony offense. It's a life imprisonment. So they're extreme consequences to what it means to us as to what is unlawful sex. And specifically when is it not consensual. And, again, in this context, the confusion that I think this bill adds to this area of law now raises to the level of due process concerns. And I think the intent that we'd be litigating that. What is the meaning of these terms here. I don't think that that will bring any more surety as to, you know, keeping the, this type of prosecution of these type of offenses. There are more, more definite and more discreet. And let me go through a little bit of what I mean by that. The first due process concerns in this context means that we have to have fair warning of what constitutes an offense. Fair warning. Can be broken down and then another in a couple other ways and concerns for warning and that it brings up the void for famous doctrine. You know, which is sufficient surety and certainty what, again, the standard is this, a person of ordinary intelligence has a sufficient certainty of what conduct is criminal. The other part of it is that it can't be so big as to invite discriminatory or arbitrary enforcement. And so, when I look at how consent is now being attempted to be defined. As pointed out earlier in the in the walkthrough. It's not just in one section of this bill but occurs. 3251 3 3254 1 through 5 3252. So at least three sections of the statute, we have, or I have to go through we have to go through what is the meaning of consent or lack thereof, both defined here in the affirmative and in the negative. And so just focusing on that issue of what does it mean to not consent. We can I can walk through each of the sections here that raises that ambiguity and lack of clarity. I wanted to first start with the 3254 section one that's page four of my bill 3254. And here the language is trial procedure consent is the title. Here there is one through six new categories, new language that doesn't currently exist, defining what consent is or is not. And here, it's established that lack of verbal or physical resistance does not constitute consent. So, silence doesn't constitute some consent. What becomes ambiguous well then what, what then does require consent, we know in this proposed language to that a clear expression of no consent means there's no consent that's that's fairly clear. But when we go go back down through this and apply the other aspects to it. What I'm left with is is really scratching my head what does it take to have full consensual sex under this proposed statute in this state. So it seems to me that unless you have written consent, no one can be safe from perhaps inadvertently committing this crime. And when I say inadvertently because that brings in the other major concern of this proposed legislation and that's going to the mens rea requirement and that's on page five. It's also sprinkled in throughout and it's the language, reasonably should have known language the newer reasonably should have known language. Again, the reasonably should have known brings this to a mens rea less than less requiring less than the defendant or the person actually know that there was no consent. When we combine this possibility, and then there and then we add new language here too. This is page five, again in the same section 3254. Six. We have a new section that's added that's going to make it that someone who I'm possibly going to the wrong. Let me go to this. The other one is relating to the impairment of alcohol. 325434. That's going to sleeping. Let's see. Hang in there. This is page three of the bill. This is new language again, not currently in the in the sexual assault statute, but it's prohibiting it.  When that other person is incapable of consenting so essentially it's it's establishing that there is no defense of consent in this particular situation when there is impairment of alcohol. And that the other person has impairment of alcohol. To me, that covers a potential scenario of a common dates and situation where you go out to a restaurant and have a drink have a glass of wine. What does it mean to have to have the other person impaired by alcohol. Particularly when now. Particularly when now. We've dropped the mens rea requirement of engaging in consensual sex, where the person just should have merely reasonably known that they were impaired by alcohol. I think that when you layer on the changes of the language here throughout. The end result is something where we're left with really an inability to know when it is okay when it is lawful to have sex. In this state and not risk of triggering and committing this potential life imprisonment offense. I can stop here because I feel like I can go through each of these line by line and if that makes sense or or if I should just sort of hit the high high note. So let's see if there are any questions before I for respond to that. Seeing Michelle. Thank you. I have a question hi Rebecca nice to see you. Good to see you too. My question is, I'm wondering, let's take the reasonably should have known. Let's take that out. Just for discussion purposes. And then I'm wondering about your concerns, whether it's due process or over breath or anything like that, if you didn't have the should have reasonably known, right. So I'm wondering about those aspects to because I'm clear that how you feel about the about the reckless standard. Right. No, and thanks for that question that would that would absolutely be better for sure, because now you're back into to bringing in that intent and the knowing right and and and and making sure that that it doesn't drop below that. That it doesn't fix this. It doesn't make the due process. Concerns go away. Let's let's let me let me give you an example. So I'm on page to 3252 a, and there is a recommendation that we eliminate the critical language in this statute, and that's relating to compulsion.  Currently the law requires and compel the other person to participate in a sexual act. And then it goes through without the consent of another person, going down through to for when a person knows or reasonably should know that the other person is asleep unconscious, or otherwise unaware that the sexual act is So the case law in Vermont. The Vermont Supreme Court has has considered in what situations does compulsion differ from lack of consent. Right. And there's a series of decisions on that and what we have learned and what they've, they've confirmed is that at the age of the complainant when it's when a child is involved right incest you, you cannot consent to not be able to consent there because of the circumstances of that particular case, there is compulsion. So it collapses those two elements are not two elements they're one element right on one level that would seem that the proposed deletion would suggest that that is consistent. But again, the Supreme Court has gone through the specific cases where we can were compulsion and lack of consent or the lack of ability to consent have been the same but it's not always the same. Again, it's because of the narrowness of narrowing of the circumstances involved in these cases, whether it's age of the accuser involved, whether it's the special relationship that the defendant has with with the complainant right parenting brawl, or particularly vulnerable person who is in the complainants position. Again, there's case law that develops whether compulsion and lack of ability to consent are one in the same. But again, the compulsion requirement, keeping it there and those circumstances not falling within those categories, helps to narrow the circumstances and provide better notice and fair warning, as to what would otherwise require or be the difference between consensual and non consensual sex between two adults, without those considerations as to like age differences are our relationship mental disabilities and things like that so there's that concern on due due process, moving down to for page three of that. Can I just ask a quick follow up and then I'll drop so because I know I don't want to take over in the committee but I guess I'm just wondering is so I get like on the, on the issue of of the age of the victim but you know we have specific specifically addressed elsewhere in the chapter with regard to the relationship of the victim to the actor and the age of the victim to the, you know, and I guess I'm wondering when I'm looking at, you know, the amendment. I mean I get what you're saying on on the on the compulsion bit but if I look at the way that it would read under this proposal so no person to engage in a sexual act with another person and then I go down to four. Let's take out the reckless piece would say when the person knows that the other person is asleep unconscious or otherwise unaware that the sexual act is occurring. I guess I just don't, I don't necessarily quite see the issue with so you, you know the person know so the actor knows that the person's asleep unconscious or unaware that the sexual act is occurring I don't know why you need for fair questioning or due process compulsion in that particular case. Well, and and as the Supreme Court would agree with you. The state sees no is a decision on point on that and, and you don't in that is yet another example that the Supreme Court has carved out where compulsion and consent are collapsed into one. So let's review that that site it's 2013 VT 19. Again, the Supreme Court held there, reviewing the facts its consent is not a defense where a complainant is sleeping or unconscious. And so my suggestion there is by adding that specific reference to the asleep unconscious in language number four. It's confusing what is already the case law and a one without the consent of the other person. We have that snow case that already says well you don't have consent when someone is sleeping and unconscious. I think it's just the goal is to say that specifically in here so you don't. And doesn't look at the statute and have to know about this no case right and so we're trying to kind of bring some of the, what's developed with the case law into the statute, and then the sponsors have chosen, you know, to be more expansive than the case law. So, I don't want to, we, you know, you and I let's get on email and we can geek out on the case law feel I'd be great to for you to send me some sites of some cases that that need like me to take a look at and stuff but I don't want it. I don't want to pick up more committee time. Okay, thanks. Moving, and I just want to point out in terms of be one. There's, there's language shifting from a substantial impairment. That is in the original language and Paris substantially the ability of the other person to apply to appraise or control. Be one, and the new language drops substantially and just makes it mere impairment by the impairment by alcohol. Again that that that was intentional because that provision is where the actor is actually drugging the victim. So the standard of it so it's just they have to without the knowledge of the victim, the actor drugs the victim and then engages in sex with them so I think it's so that wasn't. I could easily make an oversight on that by dropping the substitution but it was intentional but I respect your point there. Okay. I understand if the intent was not to change the substantive meaning from the beginning from the first part, I think it I think it does by dropping substantial you and I can connect back on that. So, again, is where I worry that this captures a date restaurant, where, where, how much alcohol, how what constitutes impairment of alcohol, and whether or not. So if you bring alcohol into any amount of alcohol that results in impairment that you don't do so without risking falling within this if sex happens afterwards. That's my concern. And then 3254 again these this is a list of one through six, taking out the mens rea. What I'm left with is that. When do you know, when do you know that you have consent to have sex. And it seems to me the way that this is understood whether it's this section whether you combine all these sections you have to have it in writing, and then even then I'm not even sure that that that protects someone. And, and again I put that in what's 3254 three, which means that it's a crime submission resulting from the use of force does not constitute consent. So even in the in the context where you have actual in writing that that was the agreed upon sex sexual act that was going to so there was it was a consensual but there's going to be involving uses of force so you know I was I was thinking about how much we are starting to legislate actual types of sexual behavior. Exploring what is consensual and what is not under this scenario, you know 50 shades of gray with written consent that that is okay does the 3254 one, where you submit submission resulting from the use of force does not constitute consent does that take away and remove any of the prior written consent to have such sex. Again, I think that this is where we start to have ambiguity. This is where we have lack of clarity of what it takes what where where is someone can go and not go to not risk this triggering this offense. I want to move on to to a different part of this bill. But before I do. I want to stress that the effect of this is to broaden what could fall within this, this criminal category. And whenever we brought you brought in the language to the point that you don't have fair warning. This is concern is about the discriminatory effect. And one thing to keep in mind, particularly this this offense. We know that the over criminalization generally is having very huge impact on racial minorities. When you throw in the extra historical context of how such biases against black men have played out in rape accusations. I think that should be very careful consideration of, of when we look into what we mean by no consent or consent that we put in some clear standards. So as we don't perpetuate a problem while we're trying to solve another one. On the data collection section. My only suggest suggestion here. Again, I, we don't object to that suggestion. It is important to for transparency to collect such information. I certainly highlight that to make sure and check that there aren't any discriminatory practices happening that the type of data collected also include demographics of the accuser of the accused of law enforcement and the attorneys involved the judges involved. Again to get a full picture of how this is playing out in practice. Our black men disproportionate being accused, being charged, being convicted, being overly sentenced. So that would be while we have this opportunity to collect data I just don't want to us to miss that opportunity so that we can make sure that if that's happening that corrections can be made on the recommendation on the council. My only recommendation there is to make sure that the, that it be fair and balanced and proposed membership of that panel right now doesn't appear to include anyone from, from for instance, communities of color, or from the perspective. And so I would encourage that that be considered in the draft here. There are no other questions. I think I'll stop here. Thank you. Thank you very much. Barbara has her hand up. Rebecca, your last point is is a really important one and I am wondering how we walk that line of addressing a crime that currently is well under reported and under prosecuted, even though it is overly over representation of people of color, I remember doing when I was on jury duty, not getting selected for a case. And the, the, it was a refugee, and they came up. How many of you think not knowing English as a defense, and how many of you think local customs is a defense and it was a pretty new refugee who was being charged with rape of a minor. The minor told him he was, she was older and it was like the saddest situation because this man did not understand at all what was going on and he was convicted and so, I mean it doesn't make the situation better for the person who the person was. But it, it, it, I'm just wondering how do we thread that needle in a way that is as sort of just as possible. I don't know if you have thoughts on that. I do and I appreciate your concern because there you're talking about layers of potential biases to that can come in, not just affirmative defenses that that he could have in that instance but the biases that come into play from all different levels and I think that what could be done is, is to clarify, because I do think this, this area needs clarification, it just needs very, very clear standards, mens rea shouldn't be anything less than knowing. If we require that the defendant know there was no consent, then that gets closer to avoiding all of those questions of, well, how am I misreading or misunderstanding the situation. I think through what innocent, you know, intentions I thought I thought I took that that silence as acquiescence as willingness as as consent. Right. So I think there's there's that start with the intent keep it keep it at knowing. I don't want to drop to anything less. I think that whenever we whenever words and phrases are used to define what is lack of consent. Again, keep it so that there's, there's, there's no room for ambiguity or, or, or ways to litigate the meaning of it. If you're sleeping or unconscious person that's clear. Right, as long as someone knows the defendant knows the intent takes care of that. Right. But again, the impairment level, the impairment of someone. So it means that alcohol and sex can't mix it all to be safe. What is that level how to how do we understand that. The silence right that this this is this is the big question. I think that 3254 when you look at and discuss all of those things that do and do not constitute consent. What are what are we left with what what is what is it that we're requiring in this statute by default to make sure someone who's trying to comply with the laws doesn't inadvertently commit sexual assault. Does it. I mean, given how confused it confused our society is about these issues. And it seems so important to have a public education like representative couple and Hanses spoke about working with colleges but I think it's also working with public schools, working with new Americans for sure. It's not people to not break on the law and it's going to be important. I mean, not just this law but but this one is one that there is prevention if we can do some public education and I don't know. That fits in with this bill but just to general I think it's something for the for us as legislators to think about how do we how do we educate our. How do we make it as easy as possible to be a good law abiding citizen. Okay, thank you Barbara. Felicia and then we're going to take a break and thank you everybody for hanging in here. Thank you. I just had a super quick comment to some of Rebecca's testimony and I appreciate you being here. You mentioned acquiescence being unclear. And I think both in the education portion. I want to encourage an understanding as to where exactly the boundaries lie as well as existing case law is recently as 2017 up here in Franklin County. It's quite clear that acquiescence has never been a marker of consent. I'm sure that as we continue our work on this bill, we do not insinuate otherwise in any way shape or form, it may not be as perfectly cut and dry, as we might want any issue to be but I don't think this issue is cut and dry, but on that matter. Acquiescence is not consent and should not be used as a defense in any way shape or form. So I just want to make sure that the comment on that matter is crystal clear and we are not letting that fall by the wayside as we move forward. Thank you. Was that a question for the witness. It was more my understanding of her comments. And as we move forward, something that I wanted to reach understanding on. Thank you. Okay. Okay, anything, anything else before we break. Thank you. And representative Lefler, I just wanted to say that that I didn't mean to inadvertently misrepresent the current law, and you can see in 3254 one, which is crossed out now. But there it was clear lack of consent may be shown without proof of resistance and, and so certainly that that isn't I'm not suggesting otherwise and that in terms of that. I think I think the question then becomes, because this is this is where we have a life imprisonment max possible. How do we know in the bedroom, just in going about about a bribe private lives and navigating these minefields, generally, with relationships and consent but how do we know that we're not here in this most serious felony, and the definition of consent and not consent has to be crystal clear. And again, because of the dune process concerns at stake, because we have a life imprisonment sentence at stake. And that's why, and that's why the Constitution requires that that that kind of of clarity and so I just urged the committee to consider that as you navigate these tricky, these tricky laws. And so, thank you. Thank you very much. Okay committee let's come back at 1045 take a 15 minute break, Barbara I know you're going to appropriations thank you so much for for doing that I'm not sure if Ken is joining you or not but if you want to can go ahead. Okay, thanks. We'll see you in 15.


Hi everyone, welcome to this video discussion of rhetorical analysis which is part of our larger discussion of critical media studies and let me tell you this is one of the big ones. Rhetorical analysis is one of the most used and most well known critical lenses through which we view all kinds of media artifacts and so rhetorical analysis has been around for a long time. It's very well regarded and very well researched and very well looked at. So anyway, this is one of the big ones for us in our study. So let's jump in and take a look at rhetorical analysis. First of all rhetorical analysis examines artifacts in relation to the effort to use symbols to influence and move the audience. So symbols is the key there. Rhetorical analysis is all about symbols and signs. It doesn't matter what kind of media we're looking at. Originally this was used to examine literature and speeches and things like that. It still is very widely used to do those things, but we can also apply it to all kinds of different media because all communication involves symbols. So that's what we're going to be looking at. Rhetorical analysis involves the effort to use symbols to influence and move the audience. As the author Philip Pullman put it one time, everything has a meaning if only we could read it. That's the essence really of rhetorical analysis that everything has meaning. All communication is made up of symbols. All symbols have meaning. So everything we see in any kind of artifact really has meaning. We just have to be able to read it. Now that we're reading sometimes involves interpretation and trying to understand a little deeper, a little more deeply what the author is trying to indicate to us, but it all involves those symbols and understanding the meaning of those symbols. So let's take a look at the major premises for rhetorical analysis. First of all, as I just mentioned, rhetorical analysis posits that all communication is symbolic, which we know. All communication is symbolic. Every word that we use, everything that we say, everything that we do is made up of symbols. Language is made up of symbols and our numberable communication is symbolic. Everything about communication is symbolic. So all communication is symbolic. And that meaning, though, is going to be specific to an individual. Again, here's where interpretation comes in because we all have a different frame of reference. That meaning of a particular symbol is going to be different for each person. We're talking about connotative and denotative meaning of words, the denotative meaning like the dictionary type definition of a word, whereas the connotative is more specific to that person. It's more interpretive, really. So the meaning is specific to that specific individual. Symbols are oftentimes grouped together, though, for use in different ways. So we group symbols together to create certain impressions or to deliver a particular message. We'll sometimes group them together. And there are a variety of ways that they're grouped together. The first way is what we call clusters, which is kind of a loose gathering of a few different symbols to make a certain impression. This ad is a cluster type example of that. This is a car ad. And so it just brings together different symbols. You get the animals, you get the vehicle, you got the people in the city, and it combines all of those to send the message that if you have this vehicle, you're prepared for everything, first of all, right? You're prepared to live in the city and have the fancy life there, but you're also prepared to go out in the wild and be, you know, more in nature and things. This vehicle can do it all. That's what this cluster of symbols is indicating to us. So this is what we would call a cluster example of cluster of symbols in rhetorical analysis. We can also look at things that we call form, where a certain media will have a certain form that they take on. So one example is we look at procedural television shows, for example.  There's going to be a crime at the beginning, right? Then the people are going to work to solve that crime. And at the end, they're usually going to wrap it up. There's a certain form that those things take on. You can also look at things like if you've noticed that if you've been in different areas, you see these commercials, especially for it seems for attorneys, they all have the same kind of form of television commercial in essence, their own. We're wielding a hammer or a club or something. They're beaten down. The people who'd want to do you harm and they're fighting for you. But they all have this kind of a similar feel to them, a similar style to them. So those kinds of commercials can take a certain form as well. So you see this in all different kinds of media, this form that follows a particular pattern or formula. We also have genres of things. We see things happen in genres when we come to expect certain things of a certain genre in film, for example, you have you see horror films and they'll fall into that specific kind of genre and we can make certain predictions and expectations about those movies based on the genre that they're in or, you know, comedies or romantic comedies, dramas, they all have their own kind of genre. And I would argue that that, you know, hallmark movies have their own, own particular drama or genre as well. Sorry. Because they all do kind of they all are following a particular form, but they're they're part of a genre. They're part of a specific style of movie that people really enjoyed these hallmark movies that are incredibly popular, right, within a certain subset. So they are kind of their own genre of movies, we have any genres of all kinds of things genres of books, genres of, of even news magazines and things that are classified by by genre in that way. Then you also just the classic narrative that we have in rhetorical analysis where involves, you know, the story, the discourse, the narration, and, and it creates a certain style of rhetoric and and presents itself for rhetorical analysis in that way. So anyway, symbols are grouped together in different ways. But in the end, again, all communication is symbolic. So rhetorical analysis is about recognizing those symbols, identifying what the purpose is and what the history is and things like that we'll get to. But it's really all about those symbols. As far as contemporary perspectives on rhetorical analysis and things we need to keep in mind, first of all, we deal a lot with affect, affect, meaning, to a certain extent, meaning emotion or how the, the, the artifact, whether it's again, whether it's an advertisement, whether it's a movie, whether it's a song, whatever it is. How does that, that artifact impact the audience, almost in a physical sense, not just in an emotional sense, but but also in a, in a really almost a physical sense. So we think, you know, we watch horror movies and things and we have this aspect that you kind of expect when you watch a horror movie that is going to make your hair stand up at some point, right? You're going to get these, you know, the, the, the murder is going to come creeping into where you're going to get goosebumps, you're going to get the hair on your arms and the back of your neck is going to stand up a little bit, right? And just going to get those chills. That's, that's an affect that those, those artifacts can have those particular kinds of movies and mystery movies and things like that can really have on us when they build that suspense in such a certain way that it can have that kind of affect on us. We see it also sometimes in, in music, for example, there's a classic example is from Woodstock 99. In 1999, there was a, there was kind of a Woodstock Revival concert or whatever. And it got a lot of hand in a lot of different ways, but, but the kind of the pinnacle, the real tipping point was when the band Limp Biscuit was playing, and they played their song Break Stuff and people just went nuts. People were were literally breaking stuff. They were, they were, they were rioting. They were harming other people. There were a lot of assaults, a lot of sexual assault, a lot of just physical assault in general. People went nuts, right? People, I mean, and it had that, that effect that presented as an affect that they played that song. People were already kind of riled up, but that song really just pushed them over the edge. I didn't tell you, you know, as an athlete in high school, you still listen to particular music to get kind of riled up for a football game or basketball game or whatever, get us in the right moon because of that affect. Media has that, that impact on us and has that kind of physiological and emotional affect that it can present as well. We also consider aesthetic when we're looking at rhetorical analysis. As I said, rhetorical analysis traditionally had been a style of looking at literature and even, even oration, examining speeches and things. But now it's really applied to any kind of media which has caused us to kind of broaden our scope of, of, of vision here and using this critical lens to include aesthetic and it is because we're dealing with more visual mediums now. So aesthetic becomes very important about it. We mean things like color, lighting, editing, movement and framing, sounds. There's a particular combination of these things that works for particular styles of movie, particular genres, for example, of a movie. So for example, you're going to get one aesthetic when you watch an Adam Sandler movie. You're going to look for certain things. There's going to be, you know, a certain way that it's, that it's lit, certain way that it's shot, certain way that they frame things. That's going to be very different from the way that they shoot like a Batman movie or something like that. It's going to, Batman movie is going to be darker. It's going to be shot in a way that, that just feels different, right? It has a different aesthetic overall. TV shows are the same way. They're, they're, they're presented differently through this aesthetic and that though has meaning. The, the choices that they make in terms of these things, in terms of the aesthetic, in terms of color, lighting, editing, movement and framing and sound certainly have an impact on the way we relate to that movie, the way we view that movie and the way that they send their messages across. All of that impacts the symbolism within the movie or within the television show, within the song, even in music. You may not have color and lighting and things, but, but you certainly have a lot of different ways that, that people present their aesthetic. Another way to think about this is in music, for example, I grew up in the 90s and that was my, you know, primary music coming to, coming of age, right? This is right in the middle of grunge and grunge had a certain aesthetic, right? When you, when you were a fan of bands like Nirvana and Soundgarden and Allison Chains and Pearl Jam and, you know, I was in the Screaming Trees and all these grunge bands coming out of Seattle and other places, but I, you know, I certainly followed into that aesthetic. I wore the torn jeans, torn jeans, plaid shirts. You don't really see plaid shirts too, but that was a big deal too for grunge, right? These baggy plaid shirts for whatever reason. There was an aesthetic that came along with that and really just, grunge was just kind of a mishmash too, just kind of, you know, wear whatever you find on the bottom of your closet was grunge, right? Because you were supposed to not care. That was a grunge. That was the grunge aesthetic, but there was a certain look, a certain vibe, and we can think about that too in terms of music, in terms of, like, goth music or country music. We expect these artists and the people that follow them really, they're major fans, to look a certain way, right? To dress a certain way. They have this aesthetic about them and that surrounds that medium. So aesthetic becomes very important in contemporary rhetorical analysis as well, becomes an important part of that equation. So some common questions. These are, I mean, there are a lot of questions we could get into for rhetorical analysis. There are, I mean, all kinds of stuff here. So I just picked a few of the broader, more common questions that we look at maybe in rhetorical analysis. Things like, first of all, what symbols are used? What symbols are utilized in this in this artifact? What are the symbols themselves? And once we identify, you know, what the different symbols are, what do they represent? What do we think they're supposed to, what message are they trying to convey here? What are they, what, what do these symbols represent? You know, if we go back to that car ad, for example, what did those symbols represent? That's the symbols of the animals on one side and the city on the other really represent kind of the freedom, right? The freedom to be all of ourselves, not just, you know, to be the button up people who look in the city, but also to be the wild people who go out in the wilderness and do things. So I mean, they represent a variety of different things that could, I mean, that's just one quick interpretation here. But what do those symbols represent? What do they intend to do? Why were those chosen? And for part of that, we're going to get, we've got to get back into who created this and for what purpose. And so then we can look at why were these symbols chosen over other symbols, right? Why were these specific symbols chosen? Why those people in that car ad? Why those animals in that car ad? Why those buildings in that car ad? Why, you know, we know why the car is there. I mean, it was a car ad, so we know why that was there. But why everything else? What was the intention there? They were chosen for a specific reason. So we're trying to identify what those are. And then what's the desire to factor outcome? Again, all of these have a million questions behind it. But what's the purpose here? What is the eventual ideal outcome for the person who put this, put this piece together, this artifact together? There's probably some reason most people don't create something for no reason whatsoever. So so we can ask these questions. These are some common questions along a bunch of others that we could throw out there for rhetorical analysis, which is one of the things that makes it so fun. There's so much depth that we can get into here. So if we apply these things just real quickly to a couple of different examples, one that came to mind for me when I think about this is back in I guess in the 2000s or whatever. And I wasn't really I mean, I was aware of this debate, but it wasn't really something that affected me. So there was a huge debate over these teletubbies, right? This was a children's program that was on television. I'm not even sure where PBS, maybe, but but it was a children's television show. And as you can see, I mean, it's clearly kind of silly, but these characters and it was for young, young children, right? Toddlers really. And so it's but there was a big uproar about the symbolism in teletubbies. People read a lot into this. There was some discussion just to name a few. There was some discussion about the symbol on the top on one of their heads. I can't even remember which one.  I did that symbolized that he was was that was representing that there were other people that saw different symbols in there that indicated that they were Nazis or communists. I mean, all kinds of stuff people read into the teletubbies for pizza. So but they they saw these symbols, they looked at symbols, they chose what I mean, they tried to identify what they represented. They were basically doing rhetorical analysis. Another movie that may be more familiar to those of us of a certain age that we can get away from the teletubbies and look at this movie, The Dark Knight Rises, my personal symbolism there. And this was a big deal at the time. I remember when it came out, there's this one scene as you see here where Batman is using some of the technology from Wayne industry to try and pinpoint where the bad guys are. He's trying to identify where this person is at. But in doing so, he's implementing he's employing surveillance equipment that he has. And it's actually spying on everybody in Gotham City. And Morgan Freeman's character actually objects and says it's not right. There were some people who looked at this and said, OK, this was during the Bush administration. This was not too long after 9 11. So we had the the Patriot Act, which gave the government pretty broad powers to to spy on people, essentially to read people's emails and listen in on their phone calls and so forth. So some people looked at this and said, OK, this is representative of the Bush administration. This is an objection. They're they're making a point about the Patriot Act are making a point about this this the way that this is being portrayed here. And so what symbols are used? They use these symbols of these these little televisions and the little squiggly lines where where people were communicating their tracking on this. What do they represent? People said it represented the NSA, the National Security Agency and their efforts to kind of listen in on everything that we're doing and track everything that we're doing. Why were they chosen? Well, some people said it was chosen because they wanted to bring this to light for people who thought that what the Bush administration was doing was was wrong. They there's some people who said, well, this is clearly a statement on or against the Bush administration's use of the Patriot Act to kind of, you know, under the cover of preventing terrorism. They're they're really just spying on individuals and taking away individual freedoms and so forth. And what was the desired effect or outcome? Well, if you if you're one of those people who read it that way, then the desired effect or outcome was that people would be upset about this and maybe object to the use of the Patriot Act for those those purposes and things and maybe to overturn or at least revamp some of those procedures and guidelines and policies. So anyway, there are ways to I mean, again, symbology that could be present in any kind of media, but that's just one that came to mind for me. I hope you've gained from this brief look at rhetorical analysis. There's so much here and there's so much information available. I hope you take advantage of it. Really, though, I would encourage you to apply this to any kind of media. I love listening to political speeches and really applying it to that. That's a fascinating area to to look at just famous speeches in general, whether it's presidents, whether it's whoever apply, you can apply it there, but you can also apply it again. When we when we watch TV, I'm always looking at this now because my mind can't shout it off. I'm always looking at what does that represent? What are they trying to say here? What is that symbol? Why did they choose this instead of something else? What, you know, what what are they trying to get across here? So I hope that that will come across your mind as we move forward here and you'll begin to to use rhetorical analysis just on a regular basis. It's something that's so valuable to us in developing that critical mindset. If you have any questions about this or anything else related to critical media studies, please give me a call. Please don't hesitate to contact me. I would be happy to discuss with you anything related to this. So please feel free to shoot me an email, reach out in that way and I'd be happy to communicate with you. In the meantime, I hope that you will begin to employ and enjoy rhetorical analysis, as much as the other ways we're looking at critical media studies. Have a great week.