Bill toughens law on visual sexual aggression against children in Maine

[bjorkfan]

By Dave Choate
[e-mail]
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.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080406/NEWS/804060343/-1/NEWS01&sfad=1

[Jed Dilligan]

1. Weird law

It seems that it would be pretty hard to establish that looking at someone equals "visual sexual aggression."

I guess the understanding is that you'd have to be pretty creepy to get cited for this, but I don't trust cops enough to put the power to arrest for the way someone looks at someone in their hands.

[Clovis Sangrail]

2. not wierd... SCARY

you look scary so
"He was staring at the kids walking in and out of the bathroom!"

this law should scare the bejeezus out of people
I know it scares me
:scared:

[MercutioATC]

4. Agreed. Horrible way to go.

I'm rabid about protecting kids. I actually believe that people who abuse children should be tortured...yes, tortured.

This law is about "thought crime", however, and that's a very slippery slope. To make it worse, it's not even a law based on real thought crime...just where one happens to be standing.

...just another example of people sacrificing liberties to gain a measure of perceived security....and we know what's been said about that.

[zonmoy]

10. yeah. as an aspie don't like this law either.

figure its gonna nab them plenty of autistics and people with related disorders.

[rocktivity]

9. A beach I go to has a playground right on the boardwalk

and I've been known to sit on a nearby bench and watch the children playing there, usually while eating something I bought from a nearby snack bar. Guess I can't do that anymore...

:eyes:
rocknation

[depakid]

3. Classic instance of a vague and overbroad statute

with the usual justification: "There is a growing outcry by the public to...."

[Juche]

5. The parents who support this should be forced to read this

http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/prevention_plan.html

Luckily there are groups that take child abuse seriously and try to address it intelligently. It is easy to think that 'weirdos I've never met' are the real threat to your kids, but statistically it is likely to be someone you trust with your kids. Most people can't face that and it leaves them unable to do anything.

http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/tell_others_the_facts.html

TABLE 4

Which Children Do Child Molesters Target?


CHILDREN IN THE FAMILY

Biological Child
19%

Stepchild, Adopted or Foster Child
30%

Brothers & Sisters
12%

Nieces & Nephews
18%

Grandchild
5%

CHILDREN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD

Child Left in My Care
5%

Child of Friend or Neighbor
40%

CHILDREN WHO ARE STRANGERS

Child Strangers
10%


Source: The Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study.


------------

I'm also incredibly uncomfortable with looking at a person being a crime. And I'm uncomfortable with giving police so much leeway to decide who to prosecute. Whats to stop them from arresting someone they don't like for glancing in a person's direction now?

[mediaman007]

6. How will teachers monitor the children's behavior in the school

lavatory? Look for a lot of teachers to get called in because the child "didn't like the way my teacher looked at me."

[AX10]

7. Starring is now going to be a crime?

:wtf:

[rocktivity]

8. "...(The police were) 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."

If he appears to be just hanging around or acting suspiciously outside the bathroom, then by all means call the cops. But all they CAN do is tell him to move along or get busted for loitering--how do you prove that the INTENT is sexual or aggressive?

:shrug:
rocknation

[acmavm]

11. Another crazy law passed by another bunch of loonies. And a law

soon to be misued in a big way.

[varkam]

12. Think of the children!

:eyes: What a stupid, overly broad law.

[ManiacJoe]

13. The reporting in that article is so bad that

if you read the actual bill, you are left wondering if the article is even refering to the correct bill.