Looked at a kid? That's a felony!

[Lilleput]

Bill toughens law on visual sexual aggression against children in Maine
Officer, lawmaker team up
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.

How would you even enforce this? How do you prove in a court that some guy was looking with 'sexual aggression' at some kid? Seriously, the next step is Thought Crimes

[evoWALO]

Dont live in maine then

[Vector]

So that I happen to glance out my window from time to time and see children playing makes me a @#@#&^#@!ing pedophile now? Can I not even enjoy my own view?

What about people who take solace on a park bench? "Sir, you are being arrested for observing the park. There are children at play!".

[Cobol74]

Presumably this law will be applicable to women too?

[VR6]

Originally Posted by Cobol74

Presumable this law will be applicable to women too?

haha for some reason I doubt it

[KaJuN]

"Sorry officer I didn't see the little boy on the bike."

"Why not?"

"Because if I was looking for small children on bicycles I'd be thrown in jail."

[jayhawk]

Originally Posted by Cobol74

Presumably this law will be applicable to women too?

Depends on solely what mood the woman is in at the time; cause from my life experience, they either want to be ogled over, or not at all. Or both at the same time.

You might think I am being sarcastic...

[Cobol74]

I was referring to women looking at the children. those, those "monsters". ...

[British_Rover]

Originally Posted by jayhawk

Depends on solely what mood the woman is in at the time; cause from my life experience, they either want to be ogled over, or not at all. Or both at the same time.

You might think I am being sarcastic...

Too fucking true.

[Ford Prefect]

so if I look at a hot (adult) girl´s ass I´m gonna be thrown in jail for rape?

and if I look at a nice car standing by the road I´ll be acused of grand theft auto?

I´ll have to blindfold myself everytime I walk into a fucking bank?

jesus...

[Lupin_IV]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I´ll have to blindfold myself everytime I walk into a fucking bank?

That would get you arrested for suspicious behavior.

[vegasrebel29]

Maine usually isn't this stupid.
Also, damn, I just committed a felony.
I shall be strong! And demand the top bunk.

[tigger]

I'd like to see them try to arrest someone for this. I don't think it would hold up too well in court.

[Blind_Io]

Presumably, this also applies to parents.

"Do you know where your kids are"
"No, that would be a felony."

[phuckingduck]

Wife: Honey, will you go check if the kids are in bed.
Husband: Fuck that, I aint going to jail by looking at them in their PJ's.

I feel sorry for anyone who has an apartment remotely near a park/school/church who may have day time sex with their window open.

[chaos386]

Originally Posted by Lilleput

How would you even enforce this? How do you prove in a court that some guy was looking with 'sexual aggression' at some kid? Seriously, the next step is Thought Crimes

Originally Posted by Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE

1. A person is guilty of visual sexual aggression against a child if:

A. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire or for the purpose of causing affront or alarm, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age, exposes the actor's genitals to another person or causes the other person to expose that person's genitals to the actor and the other person, not the actor's spouse, has not in fact attained 14 years of age. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime; [2005, c. 655, §1 (AMD).]

B. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age, exposes the actor's genitals to another person or causes the other person to expose that person's genitals to the actor and the other person, not the actor's spouse, has not in fact attained 12 years of age. Violation of this paragraph is a Class C crime; [2005, c. 655, §1 (AMD).]

C. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age, intentionally engages in visual surveillance, aided or unaided by mechanical or electronic equipment, of the uncovered breasts, buttocks, genitals, anus or pubic area of another person in a private place, not the actor's spouse and not having in fact attained 14 years of age, under circumstances in which a reasonable person would expect to be safe from such visual surveillance. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime; or [2005, c. 655, §1 (NEW).]

D. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age, intentionally engages in visual surveillance, aided or unaided by mechanical or electronic equipment, of the uncovered breasts, buttocks, genitals, anus or pubic area of another person in a private place, not the actor's spouse and not having in fact attained 12 years of age, under circumstances in which a reasonable person would expect to be safe from such visual surveillance. Violation of this paragraph is a Class C crime. [2005, c. 655, §1 (NEW).]

Emphasis mine. Don't worry folks, you're not going to be thrown in the slammer for seeing a child walk down the street.