# Indecent exposure law outside of the US **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 6, 2011, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indecent-exposure-law-outside-of-the-us/588049 "2011-07-06T16:11:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![needscoffee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/needscoffee/32/1076_2.png) [@needscoffee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/needscoffee)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indecent-exposure-law-outside-of-the-us/588049/21 "2011-07-07T18:42:46Z")
> [@Sicks\_Ate](#): > > From [Missouri Revised Statutes](http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutesearch/) > "589.400. Registration of certain offenders with chief law officers of county of residence—time limitation—cities may request copy of registration—fees—automatic removal from registry—petitions for removal—procedure, notice, denial of petition—higher education students and workers—persons removed.— > 1. sections 589.400 to 589.425 shall apply to: > (1) Any person who, since July 1, 1979, has been or is hereafter convicted of, been found guilty of, or pled guilty or nolo contendere to committing, attempting to commit, or conspiring to commit a felony offense of chapter 566, RSMo, including sexual trafficking of a child and sexual trafficking of a child under the age of twelve, or any offense of chapter 566, RSMo, where the victim is a minor, unless such person is exempted from registering under subsection 8 of this section; " > > “566.083. Sexual misconduct involving a child, penalty—applicability of section—affirmative defense not allowed, when.— > 1. A person commits the crime of sexual misconduct involving a child if the person: > (1) Knowingly exposes his or her genitals to a child less than fifteen years of age under circumstances in which he or she knows that his or her conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the child; > (2) Knowingly exposes his or her genitals to a child less than fifteen years of age for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, including the child; > 4. Sexual misconduct involving a child or attempted sexual misconduct involving a child is a class D felony unless the actor has previously pleaded guilty to or been found guilty of an offense pursuant to this chapter or the actor has previously pleaded guilty to or has been convicted of an offense against the laws of another state or jurisdiction which would constitute an offense under this chapter, in which case it is a class C felony.” > > A class C or Dfelony is punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison ([RSMo 577)](http://www.moga.mo.gov/STATUTES/C577.HTM) Compare this to **Mops’** example above, and it’s pretty harsh for a first time offense. All of the above are sex crimes involving children under 15 (or 12). None are simple indecent exposure, as your OP disingenuously implies. If an adult deliberately exposes himself/jacks off in front of a kid under 15, I contend they belong on a registry. That is deviant behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indecent-exposure-law-outside-of-the-us/588049/22 "2011-07-07T18:50:24Z")
> [@needscoffee](#): > > All of the above are sex crimes involving children under 15 (or 12). None are simple indecent exposure, as your OP disingenuously implies. > > If an adult deliberately exposes himself/jacks off in front of a kid under 15, I contend they belong on a registry. That is deviant behavior. And I contend that, absent the conditioning that it _should_ be so, seeing a penis should not be all that disturbing. To anyone, a child included. ---
**Author:** ![needscoffee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/needscoffee/32/1076_2.png) [@needscoffee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/needscoffee)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indecent-exposure-law-outside-of-the-us/588049/23 "2011-07-07T19:16:13Z")
**Indecent exposure is not the same as public nudity**. You keep trying to pretend all you’re talking about is the sight of a penis. You even used sex offenders as examples of innocent penis show-ers. Flashing/jacking off to children is an aggressive, assaultive act. It has nothing to do with public nudity, which isn’t even illegal in some places in the U.S. ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indecent-exposure-law-outside-of-the-us/588049/24 "2011-07-07T19:23:09Z")
> [@needscoffee](#): > > **Indecent exposure is not the same as public nudity**. You keep trying to pretend all you’re talking about is the sight of a penis. You even used sex offenders as examples of innocent penis show-ers. Flashing/jacking off to children is an aggressive, assaultive act. It has nothing to do with public nudity, which isn’t even illegal in some places in the U.S. I’m not ‘pretending’ anything. If we are talking past each other, then fine. I don’t feel that I’m being all that unclear, but if I haven’t already conveyed my point, I surrender. ---
**Author:** ![needscoffee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/needscoffee/32/1076_2.png) [@needscoffee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/needscoffee)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indecent-exposure-law-outside-of-the-us/588049/25 "2011-07-07T19:34:05Z")
You seem to be saying that our penalties against sex offenses are onerously high because we are prudes about public nudity. I see no support for that claim. ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indecent-exposure-law-outside-of-the-us/588049/26 "2011-07-07T19:44:30Z")
> [@needscoffee](#): > > You seem to be saying that our penalties against sex offenses are onerously high because we are prudes about public nudity. I see no support for that claim. I _suspect_ that there is a connection…strongly. My question was -is- the offense taken as seriously in other countries. The answer seems to be ‘no,’ as demonstrated by others’ posts. Those countries are generally more lax about non-assaultive nudity as well.. Correllation no equal causation, Sicks. I know. Edit - since the main question has been answered, an IMHO might be in order…mebbe I’ll do that some time. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indecent-exposure-law-outside-of-the-us/588049/27 "2011-07-07T20:18:52Z")
> [@needscoffee](#): > > Do you feel that keeping a registry of child-sex offenders and letting neighbors know when they live next-door is hysteria? Or is it that the laws are named after the victim that seems over the top? Definitely hysteria. There are already and always have been laws against kidnapping, sexual assault, indecent exposure, etc. For example there is a movement to encourage a law (Casey Anthony law?) to make it a felony to fail to report your child missing within 24 hours. Dmb idea. Basically, American lawmakers seem to be quicker than most others to create extar laws on top of existing ones - all very well and good, but the general rule seems to be “create a law” instead of enforcing existing ones. The Casey Law for example would simply make criminals of anyone who loses track fo their wayward 16yo runaways, the 3rd or 4th time they run; or confused divorced parents who think the kid is with the other parent. Soon every scream fight where the kid runs out must be reported to police. Is that REALLY necessary? The same example - current kiddie porn laws were made, with the best of ntentions and good reason, to prevent exploitation of underage girls and especially of very young children. What we see as a side-effect is teenagers threatened with long prison terms and permanent sex offender status for a predictable teen bahaviour, taking pictures of themselves and passing them around. (At least in congress you only lose your job for that…) Similarly, public urination (perhaps some combine it with an element of exhibitionism) should be a misdemeanor; but the definition of the offense depends on the mood and election prospects of the local DA. Laws should be made and passed after long sober deliberation, not on emotional impulse. Almost everything these “name” laws address is actually already illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indecent-exposure-law-outside-of-the-us/588049/28 "2011-07-07T20:26:13Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Laws should be made and passed after long sober deliberation, not on emotional impulse. Almost everything these “name” laws address is actually already illegal. Furthermore, neither of the laws named after [Adam Walsh](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=13997687) or [Jacob Wetterling](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Wetterling) would have prevented their abduction. ---
**Author:** ![needscoffee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/needscoffee/32/1076_2.png) [@needscoffee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/needscoffee)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indecent-exposure-law-outside-of-the-us/588049/29 "2011-07-07T22:48:21Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Definitely hysteria. There are already and always have been laws against kidnapping, sexual assault, indecent exposure, etc. > > For example there is a movement to encourage a law (Casey Anthony law?) to make it a felony to fail to report your child missing within 24 hours. Dmb idea. > > Basically, American lawmakers seem to be quicker than most others to create extar laws on top of existing ones - all very well and good, but the general rule seems to be “create a law” instead of enforcing existing ones. The Casey Law for example would simply make criminals of anyone who loses track fo their wayward 16yo runaways, the 3rd or 4th time they run; or confused divorced parents who think the kid is with the other parent. Soon every scream fight where the kid runs out must be reported to police. Is that REALLY necessary? > > The same example - current kiddie porn laws were made, with the best of ntentions and good reason, to prevent exploitation of underage girls and especially of very young children. What we see as a side-effect is teenagers threatened with long prison terms and permanent sex offender status for a predictable teen bahaviour, taking pictures of themselves and passing them around. (At least in congress you only lose your job for that…) > > Similarly, public urination (perhaps some combine it with an element of exhibitionism) should be a misdemeanor; but the definition of the offense depends on the mood and election prospects of the local DA. > > Laws should be made and passed after long sober deliberation, not on emotional impulse. Almost everything these “name” laws address is actually already illegal. Did you bother to read the links to the three laws cited? They are all sex offender registry laws; none of them criminalize behavior which is already illegal, as you purport. Then you use a non-existing law (Casey Law) to demonstrate that these laws are bad. And you argue that child porn laws are bad because as written they can be misused. ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indecent-exposure-law-outside-of-the-us/588049/30 "2011-07-08T11:13:26Z")
> [@Sicks\_Ate](#): > > Very good point which I failed to consider, and I do largely agree with you. I still can’t shake the feeling, though, that a little bit of it has to do with some folks’ aversion to even thinking about naughty parts. > > And I may just hijack my own thread here, but there does seem to be a good bit of hyseteria in the US when it comes to sex crimes against children. Take, for example, the following: > > [Jacob Wetterling Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Wetterling_Crimes_Against_Children_and_Sexually_Violent_Offender_Registration_Act) > > [Adam Walsh Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Walsh_Act) > > [Megan’s Law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan's_Law) > > As a rule, laws named after children are usually the result of a tragedy. Do similar, memorial-like laws exist elsewhere? In the UK we have ‘[Sarah’s Law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sarah_Payne)’ (though I doubt that’s its official name) which was chamioned by a tabloid newspaper and was, I believe, inspired by Megan’s Law. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indecent-exposure-law-outside-of-the-us/588049.md?page=1)