You haven't done anything illegal, but we're still going to put you away.

In My Humble Opinion
1

I wasn’t sure which forum to put this in, so I guess IMHO is as good as any.

I read in the newpaper today that a guy in Cleveland (or was it Colombus?) was imprisoned for an incident that happened at the local public library. Apparently he lured an 11-year-old girl into a secluded corner, and then he coaxed her into taking off her …shoes and socks, and then he fondled her … feet.

Now, please allow me to make a couple of observations:

  1. This guy is obviously a pervert.
  2. This guy probably would have done something much worse eventually (if he hadn’t already done so) if they hadn’t locked him up.
  3. This guy deserved to be locked up.
  4. What the guy did wasn’t illegal.

I think the charge they got him on was “Taking Indecent Liberties with a Minor,” but I really don’t see how fondling her feet is illegal according to the letter of the law, especially in light of the fact that she submitted to it willingly (as opposed to him forcibly removing her shoes and socks and going about his icky business).

Now, I’m not saying the guy’s not a perv (see point #1), or that he doesn’t deserve to be locked up (see point #2). All I’m saying is that he didn’t do anything that was illegal, IMHO.

So, basically what I’m asking is this: should the courts have the authority to prosecute and imprison people for weird (or disturbing), though not necessarily illegal, behavior that indicates they’re capable of doing things that are much worse?

2

rastahomie said:

Absolutely not–that would be the Thought Police in action. If that’s the case, I hope ACLU lands on them with both feet.

But…how sure are you that this isn’t covered by the appropriate statutes in Ohio? You might be surprised at what constitutes “indecent liberties with a minor,” or whatever they call their law. And if it is, her consent is likely irrelevant–that’s what the whole class of statutory rape-like crimes is about, the legal inability of a minor to consent to various sexual things.

3

How does this indicate he’s capable of doing worse? I’m not saying he won’t become a full-fledged child rapist, but in this situation, he’s nothing more than a child foot fetishist. It can’t be assumed he’ll become a sexual predator.

Anyway, should doing something unusual be grounds for imprisonment/prosecution? In this case, I’d say yes. He approached a child in a public place and performed an act with sexual connotations. The fact she gave consent has no value in the eyes of the law. Had he done this in the privacy of his own home with a consenting adult, we would consider this story a waste of time and newspaper ink.

4

To me, the problem here is vague statutes. If you don’t want strange men fondling little girls’ feet, outlaw it in some detail. Having not read the law in question, I’d say it might be specific, and it might have case law behind it that makes it clear that this fella was breaking the law, but I’m betting it doesn’t. If it does, well, I guess there’s no argument, the guy will get his just desserts.

I really don’t like old and unclear statutes written as much to avoid offending the reader as anything else. I wish they were cleaned up, although I know it would be a tedious job for the legislatures.

As to the question of whether or not the guy is a predator, well I just don’t know. He’s obviously unusual, probably got a screw loose, might be a danger to society. We’d need a psychiatric evaluation to really figure it out. Pending that, emotionally I’ll side with the police intepreting the law broadly. Even if he weren’t a danger, and I’m not going to speculate, doing what he did would present a danger to him in the long run. Putting your hands on someobody’s daughter is a good way to get your jaw broken - if he doesn’t know that, having had his whole life to figure it out, he probably needs somebody watching out for him at the very least.

Until I see the text of the law (and read the relevant judicial decisions, which I’ll probably never do), I’m not going to pass judgment.

5

Just 'cuz the guy has a foot fetish doesn’t mean he’s nuts. Hell, I’ve got a fetish along those lines (I try to get this girl I know to wear black socks whenever I can… but for some reason, I don’t have the same reaction if it’s anyone else).

Anyway, this is an instance that would fall into a “gray area” law-wise. Which is why we have lawyers. Unfortunately :smiley:

6

I am not familiar with your laws, but clearly an offence has taken place. Touching without consent is assault. Minors are generally presumed to be incapable of consenting to certain things, which is why sex with a child is rape: a child cannot consent to sex. So the child’s apparent consent to the foot touching just doesn’t count.

[hijack]A friend of mine (now a fairly high-powered lawyer) once remarked on amazing influence of the mining union, because there were all these exceptions in the law for minors.[/hijack]

picmr

7

rasta didn’t specify in the OP which paper he saw this in, so I searched all the major Ohio papers (Akron Beacon-Journal, Columbus Dispatch, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Cincinnati Enquirer) for the last six months. I didn’t come up with anything, so I searched for two years, using various combinations of the following words: feet, minor, library, charged, sexual, indecent. Again nothing. rasta, can you tell us when and where you saw this article?

Next, I went to check the Ohio Revised Code to look for some statutes regarding sexual offenses against minors. I didn’t see anything like the charge described in the OP.

I think, with the paucity of information here, nobody can make a judgement on the specifics of this particular story. In general, though, the courts absolutely should not have the power to prosecute anyone for behavior that is not illegal. That should be patently obvious.

What usually happens is that the courts either charge someone under an existing statute that they hope applies, and hope that their interpretation of the statute stands up under appeal. Or, the legislature ends up passing a new law or a new subsection of an existing law, to cover the crime committed. That, of course, lets the original offender off the for that offense, since prosecution under *ex past facto * laws is unconstitutional.

8

The guy was acting out a fetish with a young child. Even if he’s nothing ilegal, he certainly needs some pschotherapy before he does something really bad.

9

In general:

touching another person without their consent can be charged as a criminal act. It doesn’t matter if physical damage is done. A minor cannot consent.

10

Embarassed Yeah, I saw it in one of those News of the Weird columns in the State Journal-Register of Springfield, IL.

And just for the sake of clarity, I don’t live in Ohio. I live in Illinois.

11

Now, I have to put in the usual caution that I know nothing about Ohio law other than a quick trip through the Ohio Code. However, I did find the offence of “gross sexual imposition” which may be wide enough to include the conduct in question. I’ve bolded the relevant parts.
First, there’s the basic offence:

Section 2907.05

(A) No person shall have sexual contact with another, not the spouse of the offender; cause another, not the spouse of the offender, to have sexual contact with the offender; or cause two or more other persons to have sexual contact **when any of the following applies:

(4) The other person, or one of the other persons, is less than thirteen years of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of that person.**
Consent of the victim does not appear to be a defence to this charge, which as others have pointed out, makes sense when you are talking about sexual activity involving a child.

However, the key phrase here appears to be “sexual contact.” Can touching the 11 year old girl’s feet be “sexual contact”?
The term “sexual contact” is defined in the Code as well:

Section 2907.01

As used in sections 2907.01 to 2907.37 of the Revised Code:

(B) "Sexual contact" means any touching of an erogenous zone of another, including without limitation the thigh, genitals, buttock, pubic region, or, if the person is a female, a breast, for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying either person.

So the issues are whether the feet can be considered an erogenous zone, and whether, on the facts of the case, the contact was for the purpose of sexual arousal/gratification.

On the first point, the Code does not appear to define “erogenous zone.” The judge would have to consider the ordinary meaning of the words “erogenous zone,” and decide if, as a matter of law, the feet could be considered an erogenous zone. If so, the judge would then leave it to the jury to determine to if, in this particular case, the feet qualify as an erogenous zone for the purposes of the offence.

My OED defines “erogenous” as “Giving rise to sexual desire or excitement.” If the prosecution could show, perhaps by way of expert medical/psychological testimony, that the feet can be considered an erogenous zone for some people, such as the accused, then a conviction may be possible. [Note: individual Dopers may have their own views on this issue. Please feel free to share.]

The second issue is whether the accused did it for sexual arousal or gratification. That would also be a question of fact, based on exactly what happened in this particular case.
As stated in my initial disclaimer, I don’t know if this was in fact the offence in question. But, in response to the OP, it looks to me like the Ohio Legislature has enacted a statute that could criminalize the actions of the accused in this case.

12

Colin Wilkinson, saying what many others in similar situations have said:

OK, what’s the difference between “you didn’t do anything against the law but we still don’t like what you’re doing so we’re going to arrest you anyway” and “you didn’t do anything against the law so we can’t arrest you but we still don’t like what you’re doing so we are going to commit you and lock you up in a different building, and call you ‘sick’ rather than ‘evil’.”–?

13

Hmmm, don’t know about you, but my feet can definitely be an erogenous zone when handled properly. :smiley:

14

as I said: "individual Dopers may have their own views on this issue. Please feel free to share.]

15

** jti ** beat me to it. But, I was going to say. The guy was seeking out someone underage to gratify himself sexually. Whether it’s her elbow, her feet, the point is, he took what wasn’t HIS to take. PERIOD.

Though, for the life of me, I’d love to know how this managed to happen in a library, or because the libraries that I frequent here in Atlanta, you couldn’t go anywhere and be alone for a few seconds. It’s tough to picture how it could happen. But, I can also bet it wasn’t the first time, and it most likely won’t be the last either.

16

AHunter3 et al. : In general, most states have laws against people touching others ** at all ** without consent. A child cannot legally give consent.

you don’t need to rely on any law defining sexual gratification or anything else.

The action was illegal.

17

The letter of the law…god, I hate that phrase.

This guy exploited the 11-year-olds feet for his sexual gratification. Whether or not she was a victim in the eyes of the law, isn’t the point. (She wasn’t harmed physically or emotionally…I think)

I think the State has done well.

Can you get someone to curb a fetish? I doubt it.

18

The case was covered by the Columbus Dispatch on July 13, 2000. Here is the pertinent portion of the article:

"The parents of the 11-year-old asked for and got the maximum sentence for Lester Stanley DeBoard, 36, during a hearing in Franklin County Common Pleas Court.

DeBoard now faces two charges of disorderly conduct for tracing the feet of two girls in a Pickerington library. More charges are expected from elsewhere in Ohio, an investigator said.

"We want to see Mr. DeBoard get some help but also want families and children protected,’’ said George Doyle, a Worthington father of five. "We want to make sure that he’s labeled, so that in the future, when he’s sent back into society, families are protected.’’

DeBoard, whose last known address was on Fairbank Road on the South Side, pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition in May. In return, a charge of kidnapping, for allegedly using deception to lure Doyle’s daughter to an isolated area, was dropped.

DeBoard approached the girl Feb. 14 in the Old Worthington Library, 820 High St. In a secluded part of the building, he had her do gymnastics exercises. He told her he was designing a shoe and asked to trace her foot. While doing so, he touched her foot and ankle."

So it was Gross Sexual Imposition and the defendant pleaded guilty in return for dropping the more serious charge of kidnapping.

19

“…all the major Ohio papers (Akron Beacon-Journal, Columbus Dispatch, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Cincinnati Enquirer)”

All? How about the Toledo Blade?

20

Wooo-hooo! I got it right!! Long-distance lawyering!!!

[usual disclaimers continue to apply. results may vary in your jurisdiction.]