Page 1 of 8
Looking at children = "visual sexual agression"
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:40 pm
by Sionnach Glic
Bill toughens law on visual sexual aggression against children in Maine
By Dave Choate
dchoate@seacoastonline.com
April 06, 2008 6:00 AM
Those who peer at children in public could find themselves on the wrong side of the law in Maine soon.
A bill that passed the House last month aims to strengthen the crime of visual sexual aggression against children, according to state Rep. Dawn Hill, D-York.
Her involvement started when Ogunquit Police Lt. David Alexander was called to a local beach to deal with a man who appeared to be observing children entering the community bathrooms. Because the state statute prevents arrests for visual sexual aggression of a child in a public place, Alexander said he and his fellow officer could only ask the man to move along.
"There was no violation of law that we could enforce. There was nothing we could charge him with," Alexander said.
He attended a talk with Hill a week later and brought the case to her attention. Hill pledged to do what she could, Alexander said, and the result was a change through the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee in the House, which made the law applicable in both private and public places.
Alexander said he's grateful Hill was willing to take up the cause, and is hopeful the measure will clear the Senate.
"I'll be pleased that we were able to identify this flaw and take steps to rectify it," he said.
Under the bill, if someone is arrested for viewing children in a public place, it would be a Class D felony if the child is between 12 to 14 years old and a Class C felony if the child is under 12, according to Alexander.
Hill said she believes the move was necessary to correct what she called a "loophole" in the state's criminal law statutes.
"I told Lt. Alexander that I would be happy to work with him and sponsor a bill that would correct this in the 2008 session," Hill said. "And so we did."
In arguing for the bill, Alexander said she cited public rest rooms as places where the people using them should have a reasonable expectation of privacy. She said the committee determined that there would not be any major side effects from expanding the statute to include public places.
The bill recently cleared a fiscal review, done because of the state's major prison budget crunch, and Hill said it should be heading to the Senate before long.
York Police Chief Doug Bracy said the statute would represent a fairly minor change that would help keep the public safer, especially children. He noted that York police respond fairly regularly to reports of public peepers on the town's beaches.
With ever-growing concern over sexual predators, Bracy said the arrests will also allow police to check backgrounds and determine if there is a criminal history involved.
"There is a growing outcry by the public to protect our children," Bracy said, noting that tourists from all over the country visit York.
What.
The.
Hell?
Seriously, what the hell?
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:45 pm
by Tsukiyumi
Maybe they should pass a law requiring kids to wear burqas instead. I can understand the problem if the guy is following kids, or trying to look in the bathroom stall or something, but how exactly do you prove what someone is looking at? They could just say the kid got in the way of something else they were looking at.
This kind of excessive legislation is why our court systems are backed up as bad as they are. What's next? I can't look at a chick's thong when she bends over in public?
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:54 pm
by Blackstar the Chakat
I'm all for protecting kids and all that, but this is just...what's the word? Overkill?
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:55 pm
by Tsukiyumi
I agree completely. Tougher penalties for real sex offenders is a great thing, especially repeat offenders, but this is something else entirely.
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:12 pm
by stitch626
Why can't they spend time working on real issues?
This is rediculous.
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:41 pm
by Duskofdead
I'm not meaning to offend anyone by saying this, but to me this story is totally unsurprising and just the latest jump towards a logical extreme in the "battle" against child abuse. For a long time I think the pendulum has swung away from concern for the welfare of children and more towards a vindictive prosecution of thought crime and "preemptive" apprehension of those people may deem to "one day" be a threat to children, or possibly entertain such fantasies, regardless of whether or not they will actually carry through with them.
There are PLENTY of porn rings and actual child abuse cases out there to go after those. All this hunting down people for thought crimes is naturally going to lead to this kind of extreme.
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:49 pm
by Sionnach Glic
Agreed.
How do you even prove what he's looking at? What if he was just sitting on a park bench, daydreaming, and didn't realise he'd been staring at a playground for the last while? And how do you differentiate "looking at the kid because I like kids" from "looking at the kids because I'm thinking perverted things about them"? It's just plain stupid.
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:51 pm
by Aaron
Wow, I haven't seen a law with such potential for abuse. Other than the PATRIOT Act.
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:52 pm
by Sionnach Glic
Oh, don't get me started on
that pile of crap. I was practicaly having flashbacks of
Ninteen Eighty-Four when I heard about what was in that bill.
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:05 pm
by RK_Striker_JK_5
Wow, a field day for the thought police...
Seriously, how would you effectively enforce such an asinine law?
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:06 pm
by Duskofdead
Rochey wrote:Agreed.
How do you even prove what he's looking at? What if he was just sitting on a park bench, daydreaming, and didn't realise he'd been staring at a playground for the last while? And how do you differentiate "looking at the kid because I like kids" from "looking at the kids because I'm thinking perverted things about them"? It's just plain stupid.
I had a computer that changed hands a few times and let me just say there was some stuff I found (the hard drive hadn't been formatted or replaced) that all I can say is thank goodness I got rid of the thing and never was in the position of answering questions about it. It was actually an old used computer I was helping to refit for my sister and her fiancee since they are strapped for money and just wanted a computer for e-mail and playing the Sims and their old one couldn't handle it. But the way the "mood" is... how do you defend yourself that it's not yours? That you didn't look at it? You can't prove it wasn't you and "other people use my computer, I don't know how it got there" has already been dismissed as not being a valid defense in several of these cases. (I believe they made the opinion written in several cases that the owner is ultimately directly responsible no matter what.)
What makes me really mad, is that they go after cases like that, but it's not terrifically hard to find illegal stuff on Craig's List or E-Bay, or virtually anywhere on the net.
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:19 pm
by Sionnach Glic
Indeed. That's one of the reasons I get the hard drive wiped (or whatever) whenever I get a second hand computer. Thankfuly, I have a friend who's rather good with computers, so he's able to knock everything off it.
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:23 pm
by stitch626
Wow, I haven't seen a law with such potential for abuse. Other than the PATRIOT Act.
Don't even get me started!
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 3:43 am
by Monroe
Look out lifeguards
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:37 am
by Mikey
I better not go to Maine - I have a three-year-old daughter, and I always watch what she's doing. I thought I was being an attentive parent - I had no idea I was sexually abusing her!