FBI Director Robert Mueller: Agency Will Update Definition Of Rape

WASHINGTON -- FBI Director Robert Mueller has accepted a recommendation to update the way the law enforcement agency defines rape, telling a Senate panel that the change is expected to go into effect in the spring.

Currently, the FBI defines rape as the "carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will." The definition has not been updated since 1929.

This definition is narrower than the one used by many police departments around the country, and women's rights advocates say it leads to the under-counting of thousands of sexual assaults each year.

On Dec. 6, an FBI advisory board voted overwhelmingly to expand the definition, sending the final decision to Mueller.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Mueller about the panel's recommendation during a hearing on Wednesday, stating, "I know the FBI is currently working to update the definition of rape for the Uniform Crime Report. Why is that important, to update that?"

"That definition was in some ways unworkable, certainly not applicable -- fully applicable -- to the types of crimes that it should cover," replied Mueller. "And as I think you're aware, the advisory committee for NCIC in the statistics, developing the statistics, approved the change to that definition. And my expectation is it will go into effect sometime this spring."

The new terminology says rape is "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

This new definition expands the old one by taking out the requirement of a "forcible" assault and the restriction that the attack must be toward a woman. It also now includes non-vaginal/penile rape and rape by a blood relative.

"We appreciate the thorough analysis and vetting process done by the FBI's advisory process. Police chiefs throughout the country have been consulted and agree. Now that we will have accurate data, we need resources appropriately allocated to fight this hideous crime," said Carol Tracy, executive director of the Women's Law Project. A decade ago, the Women's Law Project began a campaign to change the definition of rape used by the FBI in its Uniform Crime Report.

The FBI's current narrow definition of rape has created complications for law enforcement agencies, which can't report all of the rapes they prosecute for inclusion in federal statistics if their state or locality has a broader definition.

For example, in 2010, the Chicago Police Department reported nearly 1,400 sexual assaults. None of them, however, appeared in the federal crime report because they didn't fit the federal government's definition of rape.

"We prosecute by one criteria, but we report by another criteria," Steve Anderson, chief of the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department, told The New York Times. "The only people who have a true picture of what's going on are the people in the sex-crimes unit."

Comments

[benseccorp]

07:37 PM on 12/23/2011

Investigation and nforcement are the key issues. They can change the definition all day long. Without adequately trained LE and medical staff for sexual assault, most cases are mishandled.

[Randy L Dixon Rivera]

12:02 AM on 12/16/2011

They change all the laws they want but as the DOJ & FBI know "NO investigation = NO crime!" Stop me when I lie FBI. Nothing is going to change until we hold our Federal Agency's willful and deliberate ineptitude accountable. twitter @dujaa74 (Randy L. Dixon Rivera)

[dbrett480]

11:16 PM on 12/15/2011

This seems like a good decision, however we need to remember that the definition was changed. Because in 1 year there will be tons of articles about the increase in the number of rapes and what the cause is.

[Genders]

08:09 PM on 12/15/2011

Good move.

[Marla Thurman]

07:58 PM on 12/15/2011

I'm reading these comments and thinking, "Oh, dear God, I'm surrounded by rapists and predators." What's with all the defense of rape bull in here???

[jen q]

08:55 PM on 12/15/2011

I don't know, but it's pretty disgusting.

[jm26dream]

07:39 PM on 12/15/2011

unwanted eye contact = rape

[Matt Cates]

07:27 PM on 12/15/2011

This is most certainly a step in the right direction. Now perhaps we can also take a look at what constitutes "diminished capacity": currently, if a man gets drunk and has sex, he's still held legally responsible -- as he presumably knew before taking the first drink that he might do something regrettable while intoxicated. On the other hand, if a woman gets drunk and has sex -- let's assume, for the moment, with a man -- *the man can still be held responsible* (and could also conceivably be charged with rape) as she is held to be in a state of "diminished capacity". Equal is equal: time to recognize that women, too, are responsible for their own actions.

[Dupree]

07:59 PM on 12/15/2011

I, as a woman actually agrees with this definition. If we are to be considered equal and WE are....then the same application of accountability and assigned status should be equally shared by both sexes.

[theroundearth]

08:44 PM on 12/15/2011

Interesting observation. Rape is not just having sex, it is physical or mental violence and coercing a person to drink would fall into this category.
But voluntarily getting drunk, having sex and then "regretting" it, is a different situation. Having second thoughts after the sex and thinking that it would have been better not to do it, doesn't mean that having sex is/was a bad act.

[charleyvldm9]

07:23 PM on 12/15/2011

Can a woman change her mind two days after agreeing to submit her body ,then claim rape ? Then Mike Tyson should'nt have served time .Just asking.as I've seen this alot.

[Marla Thurman]

07:56 PM on 12/15/2011

No. You haven't.

I'm curious about your take. Assaulted many women?

[Bluedrgn]

08:38 PM on 12/15/2011

Not all women are saints. Probably 99% of reported rape case are legitamite. But there is definatly a double standard.

If a guy has sex with a woman and regrets it afterward can he claim rape? No. No one would take him serously. But a woman can do just that. It might not be enough to convict, but he would certainly be convicted by public opinion and likely expelled from school if he was a student. It can, and has happened.

[Dupree]

08:03 PM on 12/15/2011

It is a legitimate question. I personally do not like the law distribution of double standards. I do not endorse politically correct posturing. It has done more damage to the cause of justice. Both sexes are to be held to the exact same accountability. I as a woman if agrees to engage in sex can not decide after guilt set in that it was without my consent. What people do not seems to comprehend is that when we project a clause in what constitutes rape with a caveat that automatically assumes that women don't lie...it is just as atrocious as men did prior to the liberation days...when they automatically assumed that we do lie. Both premises are false and each case must be examined carefully for truth and no particular gender should be automatically assumed honest.

[josephslim]

07:19 PM on 12/15/2011

i most certainly agree with the new definition of rape set by the FBI, [penetration of any kind into the body without the consent of the other is rape by all means]. i wrote an article about rape case in Pennsylvania last week, were the lady claimed to be too drunk to say no to her rapist, in my opinion that is not rape by any definition. the FBI and the senate must take in consideration that today the publick social life defer so much in different from the 1929 era when the rape laws were first put in to law, drugs and alcohol is more used to day than in the 1929 era, how are the women activist going to justify a rape if drugs or alcohol empires the parties in question?

[PunKinPai]

08:28 PM on 12/15/2011

So if a man just waits until a girl passes out (from drinking or being drugged), then anything he does to her isn't rape because she isn't able to say no?

[luckyone77]

07:04 PM on 12/15/2011

why does the victim have to be female?

[jm26dream]

07:37 PM on 12/15/2011

because men are strong and women are weak victims

[daradar]

07:42 PM on 12/15/2011

The new definition states "another person" and "victim". Where are you getting the "female" only part?

[gptgrannie]

07:03 PM on 12/15/2011

Bout time!

[HnaGirl]

06:21 PM on 12/15/2011

Time for all relevant gov. depts. to read the recent CDC report on rape and start to take the subject seriously

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16192494

[Marla Thurman]

07:57 PM on 12/15/2011

Jesus Christ, look at all the offenders in this room.

[PunKinPai]

08:28 PM on 12/15/2011

I can't believe the mods are letting these through. Yikes!

[tall coolone]

07:59 PM on 12/15/2011

LOL

[edgarcaycedoc]

06:16 PM on 12/15/2011

ANY person who uses either brute force or advantageous position to coerce another into having sexual relations SHOULD be charged with Rape. Somehow I suspect that this well intended change will still not make "rape" as serious of a crime as it is. As long as there are cops out there who take the report of a rape "victim," and then turn around and say--as soon as the victim leaves--"She liked it. You know she did." And this is not merely my suspicions, these are words of actual cops in regards to actual victims. That is one of the HUGE reasons I got out of law enforcement.

[jen q]

08:58 PM on 12/15/2011

This kind of attitude among the cops could be part of why many women who are raped fail to report it.

[edgarcaycedoc]

05:19 PM on 12/16/2011

I fully believe it is. But when you challenge the attitude, you'd be better off submitting your resignation with it. Your career is toast anyhow. But I resigned a couple decades ago, so I can at least hope attitudes have changed.

[katenola]

06:06 PM on 12/15/2011

great. of course, it won't apply to some folks. some folks, such as, say, Roman Polanski....