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.
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???
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.
I don’t think it’s ok.
Do you think it’s illegal?
Yes. As socially inappropriate as what this guy did, a crime as serious as the one we’re talking about requres:
- Mens rea (in this case, sexual intent, which is probably actually present)
- 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?
Considering so many say it wasnt illegal, I was taking the other side saying it was.
I understand. That being said, it doesnt extend to socks because socks arent perceived as a mainstream sexual aid.
The definition is broad based, and I understand the law isnt. But see below
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
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…
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.