International Journal of Law and Society 2020; 3(4): 204-208 http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/ijls doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20200304.17 ISSN: 2640-1894 (Print); ISSN: 2640-1908 (Online) The Model Penal Code and the Sexual Conduct of Police Officers While on Duty Donald Lee Buresh Cybersecurity Assurance and Policy Department, Morgan State University, Baltimore, Maryland Email address: To cite this article: Donald Lee Buresh. The Model Penal Code and the Sexual Conduct of Police Officers While on Duty. International Journal of Law and Society. Vol. 3, No. 4, 2020, pp. 204-208. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20200304.17 Received: August 13, 2020; Accepted: November 24, 2020; Published: December 11, 2020 Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to examine the penalties proposed in the Model Penal Code when a police officer engages in sexual conduct while on duty. At issue is whether the Model Penal Code should explicitly make it an enhanced penalty or offense when a law enforcement officer engages in sexual conduct while on duty with any individual, including a child, or is involved in sexual violence of any kind, whether on or off duty. The paper discusses the procedural due process issue, substantive due process issues, and equal protection issues of including an enhanced penalty when a police officer engages in sexual conduct with an individual involved in sexual violence. The work also considers the moral authority of the Model Penal Code as well as public welfare matters when a police officer participates in such behavior. The article concludes by recommending that the Model Penal Code should specifically make it an enhanced penalty or offense when a law enforcement officer engages in sexual conduct while on duty with any individual, including a child, or is involved in sexual violence of any kind, whether on or off duty. The conclusion seems appropriate given that police officers hold the public trust when performing their duties. Keywords: Enhanced Criminal Penalties, Law Enforcement, Model Penal Code, Sexual Conduct 1. The Model Penal Code After many years of attempting to formulate a uniform criminal code for the United States, on May 24, 1962, the American Law Institute adopted the Model Penal Code [1]. The current form of the MPC was last updated in 1981 [1]. As of 2007, only 37 states have adopted modified and partial versions of the Code [1]. Even so, New York, New Jersey, and Oregon have adopted nearly all of its provisions [2]. Section 213 of the Model Penal Code describes rape as sexual intercourse that is initiated by a man against a woman who is not his wife, where the man compels the woman by force or by the threat of death, serious bodily injury, extreme pain, or kidnapping, to be inflicted sexual intercourse. According to the MPC, such behavior constitutes a first-degree felony [3]. Section 213.3 deals with the criminal corruption of minors and seduction via deviate sexual intercourse, where the deviate sexual act consists of either oral or anal sexual intercourse [3]. In this case, a violation of Section 213.3 is a third-degree felony if the victim is less than 16 years old; otherwise, it is a misdemeanor. Finally, Section 213.4 is concerned with sexual assault, where the sexual act is vaginal sexual intercourse [3]. Although Section 213.4 lists a variety of situations where sexual assault may occur, the penalty for sexual assault is a misdemeanor [3]. The problem with the Model Penal Code is that the current definitions of rape and sexual assault are simply inadequate [4]. These sections of the MPC do not address the situation where an individual of authority, such as a law enforcement officer, threatens an adult woman or a female minor child typically with imprisonment unless the victim agrees to engage in sexual intercourse with the law enforcement office [3]. In recent years, the American Law Institute has attempted to rectify this deficiency in the MPC. Still, as of this date, the ALI has yet to adopt any of the revisions of Section 213 of the MPC that have been submitted to the organization [5]. The reason that these changes to Section 213 have yet to be adopted is that the meaning of consent varies [5]. Therefore, this case presents a genuine need to significantly revise Section 213 so that police officers can no longer sexually