Session: 2025-2026
ACLU-PA Position: Opposes
HB 355 (PN 309) would amend the corruption of minors offense to make two changes: (1) increasing the penalty for non-sexual corruption of minors from a first-degree misdemeanor to a third-degree felony if the defendant is a police officer, school employee, or school volunteer; and (2) increasing the penalty for sexual corruption of minors from a third-degree felony to a second-degree felony if the defendant is a police officer, school employee, or school volunteer.
HB 355 appears to shoe-horn elements of institutional sexual assault into the corruption of minors offense. Institutional sexual assault committed by either a police officer or school employee is currently graded as a third-degree felony. But the grading increases proposed in HB 355 lead to two overly punitive and inconsistent penalties:
-
By increasing the penalty for sexual corruption of minors by a police officer or school employee to a second-degree felony, HB 355 would be more punitive than institutional sexual assault. In other words, under HB 355, a police officer who rapes a person in their custody would be punished less severely than a police officer who corrupts a minor in the commission of a sexual offense.
-
By increasing the penalty for non-sexual corruption of minors to a third-degree felony, HB 355 would grade the offense, if committed by a police officer or school employee, the same as institutional sexual assault. In other words, under HB 355, a teacher who purchases cigarettes for a minor would face the same charges as a teacher who rapes a student under their care or supervison.
HB 355 also appears to be an attempt to limit prosecutorial discretion by changing the law. There is no shortage of offenses in the PA Crimes Code to charge a person who corrupts, abuses, assaults, or otherwise harms a minor. Prosecutors routinely stack charges against defendants in order to get a conviction at trial or, more often, to secure a plea deal. Both HB 355 and last session's version of the bill, HB 1847, were filed in response to cases where plea deals resulted in corruption of minors convictions after additional charges were dropped. For HB 355, the case involved offenses against a minor by a Philadelphia school teacher and for HB 1847, the case involved offenses against a minor by a York City police officer.
Whatever the specifics of these cases or the evidence obtained, it is no doubt likely that the victims and their families were upset that the penalties were not higher. But no amendment to the corruption of minors offense—no matter who it covers or how severe the penalties—will prevent prosecutors from exercising their legal prosecutorial discretion. The appropriate remedy to hold district attorneys accountable for their charging or conviction decisions is at the ballot box, not by contorting the law.
