Man arrested for asking girls to wear socks--is this really a sex crime?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

What is the line that must be crossed for this sort of interaction to be illegal?

Seriously? It has to be against the law. The law defines specific actions as illegal and things that are not specifically described as being illegal are legal. That's what the concept of "the exception proves the rule" means. If the law says you cannot drive more than 65 miles an hour, then it is legal to drive less than 65 miles an hour. If you are allowed to keep animals as pets unless they are endangered, you can have a non-endangered animal as a pet. If it's illegal to have sex with a person under (say) 16 or expose your genitals to them or touch their genitals or various other body parts, then you can do those things with someone older than 16 and you can touch the non-proscribed body parts of someone under 16. This kind of law can look overly complicated, but the complications exist for good reason.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

So what youre saying is, the definition of a word isnt allowable unless it is defined in the statute?

The dictionary definition of the word isn't used if the word is defined in the statute, or in the caselaw interpreting the statute.

Well, finally we have made the step. Our prior discussions distinctly kept the sexual part off the charts, it is now a part of the conversation.

Im going to focus my response on the text I turned red, but I think it will address all in time.

I wasnt aware that sexual interaction with kids had categories. It begs the question, at what point does the interaction of a sexual nature become illegal with kids.

In this case, the interaction was direct with purpose of sexual satisfaction, without permission, and with people unable to consent to sexual interaction.

What is the line that must be crossed for this sort of interaction to be illegal?

It depends.

We start with this proposition: every single act is legal.

Then we write laws that prohibit certain acts.

There is a history of acts made illegal by years of court actions and interpretations. This is called the common law. Some states start with the common law, and then add additional criminal acts, and modify the common law.

In the 1960s, there was a movement to get states to homogenize their criminal laws. The result was a draft called the Model Penal Code, which some states adopted... And then later changed. But in general, 49 of the 50 states use either the common law, or the Model Penal Code, with their own slight changes.

So the answer to your question is potentially different in every state.

In Florida, where the instant situation arose, the line is an overtly lewd and lascivious act.... that is, an act which a reasonable observer would identify as lewd and lascivious.
Note that the reasonable observer cannot peer into the head of the actor. This is both good and bad; the actor cannot claim that his fetish is toes and therefore his touching of genitals was not lewd since it doesn't turn him on. The reasonable observer can conclude that touching of genitals is lewd, no matter what the actor claims.

By the same token, even though the actor may become sexually excited by socks, the reasonable observer cannot conclude that asking girls to wear socks is, per se, lewd.

[Evil Captor]

The age of the accused vs. the age of the girls tells me the guy is about an inch away from being a child molester. If he is confronting girls at random for this fetish, how far is he from dragging one into an alleyway for a more, um, personal interaction? I'd say the best bet, since he has not in fact molested any girls, is get him in treatment to see if he can be pulled away from it, though I know the treatment record for child molesters is fairly dismal. I'm more concerned about the safety issue vs. the legal definitions. That said, it may be difficult to compel him legally if he cannot be charged.

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by Marley23

. If it's illegal to have sex with a person under (say) 16 or expose your genitals to them or touch their genitals or various other body parts, then you can do those things with someone older than 16 and you can touch the non-proscribed body parts of someone under 16. This kind of law can look overly complicated, but the complications exist for good reason.

So foreplay with someone under 16 is legal.

[x-ray vision]

^ You were given a link in the first response in this thread. From that link:

(a) A person who intentionally touches in a lewd or lascivious manner the breasts, genitals, genital area, or buttocks, or the clothing covering them, of a person less than 16 years of age, or forces or entices a person under 16 years of age to so touch the perpetrator, commits lewd or lascivious molestation.

How long are you going to play this game?

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

The age of the accused vs. the age of the girls tells me the guy is about an inch away from being a child molester. If he is confronting girls at random for this fetish, how far is he from dragging one into an alleyway for a more, um, personal interaction? I'd say the best bet, since he has not in fact molested any girls, is get him in treatment to see if he can be pulled away from it, though I know the treatment record for child molesters is fairly dismal. I'm more concerned about the safety issue vs. the legal definitions. That said, it may be difficult to compel him legally if he cannot be charged.

We cannot presume that this will progress into a worse crime.

The issue appears to be a perception of normality of perception (as described in Brickers PP)

So if one has a unique sexual desire, because it isnt obvious, they have a carte blanche with kids, even when admitting to their fetish

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

So foreplay with someone under 16 is legal.

Sure, if you define foreplay in such a way that it doesn't consist of any kind of sexual touching or exposure or anything else illegal - which makes me wonder if you can call it foreplay in the first place.

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Sure, if you define foreplay in such a way that it doesn't consist of any kind of sexual touching or exposure or anything else illegal - which makes me wonder if you can call it foreplay in the first place.

Not sure if it has a statutory definition or not, but according to AH, its

Sexual stimulation preceding intercourse.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

Not sure if it has a statutory definition or not, but according to AH, its

Sexual stimulation preceding intercourse.

I know what foreplay is, thank you very much. And no, it does not appear to have a statutory definition in this context. There's nothing in the law about "foreplay." There are laws about sex and touching and exposure, none of which this guy apparently broke. I'd be happy to see him prosecuted for that if somebody could explain how it would work, but you can't start with "well, it was sexual for him and then work your way backward to make it a violation of the law. His actions - not his thoughts - have to violate the law as it's written.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

So if one has a unique sexual desire, because it isnt obvious, they have a carte blanche with kids, even when admitting to their fetish

No, what they can't do is clearly spelled out in the applicable statute, which I linked in post #2. It does not appear, from the facts presented, that this person violated that statute. If you happen to have a link to another statute you think may apply, kindly provide it.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

Not sure if it has a statutory definition or not, but according to AH, its

Sexual stimulation preceding intercourse.

Well, § 800.04(5), Fla. Stat., prohibits an actor from touching the breasts, genitals, genital area, buttocks, or the clothing covering those areas, when the victim is under 16.

Is that what you mean by foreplay?

[Bricker]

Between the research I've done for Zimmerman and now this thread, I may just take the Florida Bar.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Between the research I've done for Zimmerman and now this thread, I may just take the Florida Bar.

And spend the rest of your career dealing with insane cases like this?

Then again if you're already dealing with them I guess you may as well make some money for your trouble.

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I know what foreplay is, thank you very much. And no, it does not appear to have a statutory definition in this context. There's nothing in the law about "foreplay." There are laws about sex and touching and exposure, none of which this guy apparently broke. I'd be happy to see him prosecuted for that if somebody could explain how it would work, but you can't start with "well, it was sexual for him and then work your way backward to make it a violation of the law. His actions - not his thoughts - have to violate the law as it's written.

The action of asking the children to wear the clothes for his sexual pleasure would seem to me to be the key. If those were fishnets, high heels, halter tops, would it be an issue? If the clothes were bikinis, would it be an issue?

Originally Posted by Bricker

Between the research I've done for Zimmerman and now this thread, I may just take the Florida Bar.

I just make visit a Florida bar......


Foreplay may include what you asked, but it isn not limited to that

[Marley23]

dngnb8, we talked about that yesterday. It's not illegal just because it's creepy. It has to violate some part of the statute, which you can read in this thread.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

We cannot presume that this will progress into a worse crime.

We cannot assume such for legal purposes, but for practical purposes we'd be pretty damn dumb not to consider the possibility. Who knows how long this guy spent just sitting on benches and looking at little girl's socks before he made his request? How far beyond that will he go? We don't know. But when he starts talking and interacting with little girls to feed his fetish, he's taken kind of a big step. He might never go beyond that, he might go dragging girls into alleyways, we just don't know. I know I sound like one of those "WHO'LL THINK OF THE CHILLLDRUNNN?" types who pop up every time there's a chance to commit censorship, but the difference between them and me is I"m advocating a low-level approach to a specific individual, not advocating a shotgun approach to killing flies. I have not asked that he be jailed or fined, just pointed in another direction, if possible. It probably is not possible, from all that I've read, but how you gonna feel if this guy escalates?

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

We cannot assume such for legal purposes, but for practical purposes we'd be pretty damn dumb not to consider the possibility. Who knows how long this guy spent just sitting on benches and looking at little girl's socks before he made his request? How far beyond that will he go? We don't know. But when he starts talking and interacting with little girls to feed his fetish, he's taken kind of a big step. He might never go beyond that, he might go dragging girls into alleyways, we just don't know. I know I sound like one of those "WHO'LL THINK OF THE CHILLLDRUNNN?" types who pop up every time there's a chance to commit censorship, but the difference between them and me is I"m advocating a low-level approach to a specific individual, not advocating a shotgun approach to killing flies. I have not asked that he be jailed or fined, just pointed in another direction, if possible. It probably is not possible, from all that I've read, but how you gonna feel if this guy escalates?

Having played devils advocate in this thread for a few days now, I understand your issue. We as a society talk about "warning signs". The issue that has been eloquently communicated by others is about about our Rights. The more laws we have, the more we have Government in our lives. While what you talk about may protect these kids from him, it also may create situations where there is no risk what so ever, and then you get the Law Enforcement Harassment chatter.

Ive always said there is a cost to Freedom, and sometimes the cost is an innocent life. It isnt planned that way, it just happens that way.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

Having played devils advocate in this thread for a few days now

I'm not seeing where you advocated for either side. I don't think that term means what you think it means.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

The action of asking the children to wear the clothes for his sexual pleasure would seem to me to be the key. If those were fishnets, high heels, halter tops, would it be an issue? If the clothes were bikinis, would it be an issue?

Good hypo.

If the fishnets, high heels, etc., were overtly sexualized, so that it was wildly inappropriate for a child to wear them, I would say he could be charged with a violation of § 827.04(1), Fla.Stat., which provides:

(1) Any person who:

(a) Commits any act which causes, tends to cause, encourages, or contributes to a child becoming a delinquent or dependent child or a child in need of services; or

(b) Induces or endeavors to induce, by act, threat, command, or persuasion, a child to commit or perform any act, follow any course of conduct, or live in a manner that causes or tends to cause such child to become or to remain a dependent or delinquent child or a child in need of services,

As you can see,though, this reasoning would not extend to socks.

Foreplay may include what you asked, but it isn not limited to that

Fine. Then explain precisely and specifically what act or acts you're thinking of, and I'll tell you if, in my opinion, the act is legal.

[Vicullum]

Another update: I found a really similar case in California where a man was given a life sentence for sucking on boys' toes. In 2003 Trenton Veche was found guilty on 25 felony counts of lewd acts with minors for nibbling on the toes of two dozen boys ages 8 to 11 while he worked as an after-school program supervisor. The interesting part:

Veches may have been satisfying a sexual urge without realizing it, said Elyn Saks, a USC professor of law and behavioral sciences. "It's not uncommon for people to have foot fetishes and be getting sexual pleasure out of it and not know it," she said. "People can be sexually aroused without necessarily showing physiological signs of it. It can be emotional."

A psychiatric examination could help define the motivation behind the toe-sucking, Saks said. But the prosecution hasn't asked for such a test -- although the defense says it is willing to have their client submit to one -- which surprises Saks. "The general question here is 'If you have sexual intent and don't realize it ... should you be liable?' "

A jury thought the answer to the last question was "yes."

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Vicullum

A jury thought the answer to the last question was "yes."

The jury obviously felt he his intent was sexual since he was sucking the toes of children at his afterschool supervisor job and collecting child pornography at home.

[FloatyGimpy]

Originally Posted by jtgain

I understand that these are children and deserving of extra protection, but as has been said, the guy did nothing and attempted nothing sexual with these children. What if I tell a 6 year old that she has a pretty dress on. I may be a perv or I may just be a regular guy. Are you prepared to charge everyone with a felony and see where the chips fall?

So you see a little girl in a "pretty dress" at the park, you drive around the park, watching her. Stop the car and look at her for a while. Then you get out of your car and approach her and say "hey little girl, that's a really pretty dress".

You think that's ok? Really???

[DigitalC]

Originally Posted by FloatyGimpy

So you see a little girl in a "pretty dress" at the park, you drive around the park, watching her. Stop the car and look at her for a while. Then you get out of your car and approach her and say "hey little girl, that's a really pretty dress".

You think that's ok? Really???

How is that not ok???

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by DigitalC

How is that not ok???

Little girls shouldn't be complimented, or they'll grow up to think they have an immaculate sense of fashion!

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by DigitalC

How is that not ok???

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Little girls shouldn't be complimented, or they'll grow up to think they have an immaculate sense of fashion!

The issue was the part where the driver circles the park while staring at her, of course, not the compliment. It's probably not a crime much more serious than loitering, but it's inappropriate and it's not something most parents would tolerate.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by FloatyGimpy

So you see a little girl in a "pretty dress" at the park, you drive around the park, watching her. Stop the car and look at her for a while. Then you get out of your car and approach her and say "hey little girl, that's a really pretty dress".

You think that's ok? Really???

I don't think it's ok.

Do you think it's illegal?

[robert_columbia]

Originally Posted by Merneith

I see what you're saying. Thanks for finding all the info.

Yes. As socially inappropriate as what this guy did, a crime as serious as the one we're talking about requres:

1) Mens rea (in this case, sexual intent, which is probably actually present)
2) Actus reus (in this case, a sexual act)

Generally, for a crime to occur, both of these must be present simultaneously. Allowing #1 to define #2 is absurd. What if someone had a fetish for checking email or otherwise using a computer? Does that mean that he is not allowed to show his child how to check their email lest he commit a sex crime?

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I'm not seeing where you advocated for either side. I don't think that term means what you think it means.

Considering so many say it wasnt illegal, I was taking the other side saying it was.

Originally Posted by Bricker

Good hypo.

If the fishnets, high heels, etc., were overtly sexualized, so that it was wildly inappropriate for a child to wear them, I would say he could be charged with a violation of § 827.04(1), Fla.Stat., which provides:

As you can see,though, this reasoning would not extend to socks.

I understand. That being said, it doesnt extend to socks because socks arent perceived as a mainstream sexual aid.

Fine. Then explain precisely and specifically what act or acts you're thinking of, and I'll tell you if, in my opinion, the act is legal.

The definition is broad based, and I understand the law isnt. But see below

Originally Posted by Vicullum

Another update: I found a really similar case in California where a man was given a life sentence for sucking on boys' toes. In 2003 Trenton Veche was found guilty on 25 felony counts of lewd acts with minors for nibbling on the toes of two dozen boys ages 8 to 11 while he worked as an after-school program supervisor. The interesting part:



A jury thought the answer to the last question was "yes."

I dont consider the cases equal. The guy who asked girls to wear socks never came in physical contact in any sexual way. Oral fixations are a completely different topic

Originally Posted by FloatyGimpy

So you see a little girl in a "pretty dress" at the park, you drive around the park, watching her. Stop the car and look at her for a while. Then you get out of your car and approach her and say "hey little girl, that's a really pretty dress".

You think that's ok? Really???

It isnt illegal. This case isnt equal to the OP case either.

--

Summation: (I feel like Jerry Springer) *looks into camera with a concerned face and furrowed brow<emote on>*

I understand the law addresses what is illegal. However, can we also surmise that the law addresses an overall intent?

In the case of the OP, even though the events are not defined as mainstream sexual behavior, the confession of the Fetish seems to indicate a sexual intent. Even if it didnt involve the girls in physical events, they were unwittingly involved in an attempt to consent to one, and the suspect was targeting children too young to consent.

The law addresses sexual participation to some degree. These definitions however are not static and over time, we learn more and things can change. I think we can conclude based on the suspects admission of his Fetish, the definition of what a Fetish is, admission he has done this before, and the age of the children, some form of sexual intent with children as a focus, was attempted, even if they werent part of the physical end results.

So does this mean what happened was illegal? It seems because this genre of sexual satisfaction has never been addressed, it is presumed legal. Maybe once it is addressed, it will be found to be illegal, and a precedent is set.

I think we need to be careful here to understand what happens so we do not turn this into a "Thought Police" issue.

1: The suspect interacted with the children directly, purposefully without their parents permission.
2: He made a request of them which presented them in a specific way for his sexual satisfaction (whether the kids knew it or not is immaterial). He gave them specific direction to facilitate his sexual satisfaction
3: They were underage and not able to consent to the request for its end result


Thank you for watching Dopey Springer. Stay tuned for next show when the topic is

Your my Sister, and my Babies Mother.......

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

Considering so many say it wasnt illegal, I was taking the other side saying it was.

OK, but I don't think you did the job properly. I think you have to make an argument if you want to engage in any kind of decent devil's advocacy, and you didn't do that. Most of the time you just asked people to explain or cite things that had already been explained or cited.