[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10892-S10893]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   CARJACKING CORRECTION ACT OF 1996

  The bill (S. 2007) to clarify the intent of Congress with respect to 
the Federal carjacking prohibition, was considered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that this bill will soon 
become law. I commend my cosponsor, Senator Hatch, and I also commend 
Representative Conyers, who championed this bill over in the House, and 
with whom I was proud to work on it.
  A few months ago, the first circuit court of appeals made a mistake. 
It made, in my view, a very big mistake: It said that the term 
``serious bodily injury'' in one of our Federal statutes does not 
include rape.
  Let me tell you about the case. One night near midnight, a woman went 
to her car after work. While she was getting something out of the back 
seat, a man with a knife came up from behind and forced her back into 
the car. He drove her to a remote beach, ordered her to take off her 
clothes, and made her squat down on her hands and knees.
  Then he raped her. After the rape, he drove off in her car, leaving 
her alone on the side of the road.
  The man was convicted under the Federal carjacking statute. That 
statute provides for an enhanced sentence of up to 25 years if the 
defendant inflicts ``serious bodily injury'' in the course of a 
carjacking.

[[Page S10893]]

  When it got time to sentence the defendant, the prosecutor asked the 
court to enhance the sentence because of the rape. Mind you, there was 
no dispute that the defendant had, in fact, raped the victim.
  The trial judge agreed with the prosecutor, and gave the defendant 
the statutory 25 years maximum, finding that the rape constituted 
``serious bodily injury.''
  But when the case went up to the first circuit, that court said 
``no''--rape is not serious bodily injury. To support its ruling, and 
I'm now quoting the opinion, the court said that ``There was no 
evidence of any cuts or bruises in her vaginal area.''
  That, in my view, is absolutely outrageous--and Senator Hatch and I 
proposed this bill to set matters straight.
  Under the code, ``serious bodily injury'' has several definitions. It 
includes: a substantial risk of death; protracted and obvious 
disfigurement; protracted loss or impairment of a bodily part or mental 
faculty; and it also includes extreme physical pain.
  It takes no great leap of logic to see that a rape involves extreme 
physical pain. and I would go so far as to say that only a panel of 
male judges could fail to make that leap and even think--let alone 
rule--that rape does not involve extreme pain.
  Rape is one of the most brutal and serious crimes any woman can 
experience. It is a violation of the first order, but it has all too 
often been treated like a second class crime. According to a report I 
issued a few years ago, a robber is 30 percent more likely to be 
convicted than a rapist; a rape prosecution is more than twice as 
likely as a murder prosecution to be dismissed; a convicted rapist is 
50 percent more likely to receive probation than a convicted robber.
  No crime carries a perfect record of arrest, prosecution, and 
incarceration--but the record for rape is especially wanting.
  And this first circuit decision helps explain why: too often, our 
criminal justice system just doesn't get it.
  If the first circuit decision were allowed to stand, it would mean 
that a criminal would spend more time behind bars for breaking a man's 
arm than for raping a woman.
  For 5 long years, I worked to pass a piece of legislation that I have 
cared about like no other: The Violence Against Women Act. The act does 
a great many practical things:
  It funds more police and prosecutors specially trained and devoted to 
combating rape and family violence;
  It trains police, prosecutors, and judges in the ways of rape and 
family violence--so they can better understand and respond to the 
problem;
  It provides shelters for more than 60,000 battered women and their 
children;
  It provides extra lighting and emergency phones in subways, bus 
stops, and parks;
  It provides for more rape crises centers;
  It set up a national hotline that battered women can call around the 
clock--to get advice and counseling when they are in the throes of a 
crisis;
  And we're getting rape education efforts going with our young 
people--so we can break the cycle of violence before it gets started.
  But the Violence Against Women Act also meant to do something else, 
beyond these concrete measures: it also sent a clarion call across our 
land that crimes against women will no longer be treated as second 
class crimes.
  For too long, the victims of these crimes have been seen not as 
innocent targets of brutality, but as participants who somehow bear 
shame or even some responsibility for the violence.
  This is especially true when it comes to victims who know their 
assailants. For too long, we have been quick to call theirs a private 
misfortune rather than a public disgrace. We have viewed the crime as 
less than criminal, the abuser less than culpable, and the victim less 
than worthy of justice.
  We must remain ever vigilant in our efforts to make our streets and 
our neighborhoods and our homes safe for women.
  And we need to make sure--right now--that no judge ever misreads the 
carjacking statute again. With this bill, we are telling them that we 
intend, that we always intended, for those words ``serious bodily 
injury'' to mean rape--no if's, and's or but's.
  I thank my colleagues for their support.
  The bill (S. 2007) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, 
was read the third time, and passed; as follows:

                                S. 2007

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Carjacking Correction Act of 
     1996''.

     SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF INTENT OF CONGRESS WITH RESPECT TO 
                   THE FEDERAL CARJACKING PROHIBITION.

       Section 2119(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``, including any conduct that, if the conduct 
     occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction 
     of the United States, would violate section 2241 or 2242 of 
     this title'' after ``(as defined in section 1365 of this 
     title)''.

                          ____________________