If you're new to DBKP, you may want to subscribe to the DBKP.com RSS feed. Thanks for stopping by!

It’s 1984 in Maine

New Bill in Maine Makes “Visual Sexual Aggression” a Crime

It might be 2008 in the rest of the USA, but in Maine, it’s 1984.

A new bill in the Pine Tree State would make it a crime to peer at children in public. It’s been asserted that some legislators can justify making any action a crime–as long as they add the magic words “for the children” to the mix.

This Maine bill adds proof to that assertion.

State Rep. Dawn Hill, D-York, is the head cheerleader for a bill only a fan of police state actions could love.

Or a police chief.

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.

So that’s the problem: police could only ask the man to “move along”. The man had not committed a crime–at least outside of Maine.

In the movie, “Minority Report”, the state had a police crime squad which busted into people’s home and prevented “pre-crime”: crime that hadn’t happened yet, but which was foreseen by a committee of mutants who had the power to see into the future.

Maine doesn’t have any prescient mutants that is known, but one suspects that Ray Dawn Hill or Police Chief Alexander would volunteer for the position. “Pre-crime” is their concern.

As long as it’s “for the children”, arresting someone who is denounced for “visual sexual aggression” is positively an advance in crime prevention for the determined duo.

Ray Dawn Hill will be watching you–to make sure you don’t watch children

So, besides consoling each other with “there ought to be a law” talk, what steps did Maine’s finest criminal minds do next?

[Alexander] 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.

Over at the Doctor Helen blog, Doc Helen had similar thoughts–and a ton of good questions.

I have a lot of questions about such a law. What does peering actually mean? Does staring at a teen who looks 25 when one is at the beach count? Does staring at some kids like I did a few years ago because they looked like they were trying to get into some trouble count or am I excluded from the law because I am a woman? A Class C Felony is a serious charge, will people (mainly men, I assume) be put in jail for the simple act of staring? How do you know the person had the intent of “visual sexual aggression”? How does one determine if staring or peering is aggressive or not? One person’s aggression is another’s peaceful gaze. This law seems very vague and unfair. Does anyone in Maine care?

Does anyone–at least, anyone residing in the Maine House–ask any questions? Or are they all falling over themselves to be seen as doing something “for the children”?

There’s apparently been no questions and no thought–as there is many times in crafting “feel good” legislation–about the unintended consequences of a law against unlawful looking. Just a rush to rectify something that might have been solved with a simple “move along”.

Anyone who has children has seen other children play and let their minds wander back to when their own children were that age–and then on to whatever other times and places that such thoughts transport the thinker to.

Just be careful not to do that in Ray Dawn Hill’s Maine or the thinker may be transported to jail.

It’s little consolation to any Maine visitor who’s denounced for “visual sexual aggression” that Hill’s legislative handiwork is unconstitutional. That’s court decisions and many lawyer’s bills away.

In the meantime, if this becomes law, mark down Maine as a place where you better just keep your eyes to yourself–especially if you’re in the company of children.

And the question, posed by reader Pat–if this bill becomes law–becomes “What’s next? Boobs? Butts?”

Democrats? Republicans? Sour looks? Someone dressed differently? A woman in a burqa who thinks you’re being a complete infidel and eying her in a sexually aggressive visual way?

Where does it stop?

Or does it?

File this one under “Legislative Mischief”.

by Mondoreb
hat tip: pat
images/Sources:
* DBKP image
* Bill toughens law on visual sexual aggression against children in Maine
* Should visual sexual aggression be against the law?


Back to DBKP/Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
Also posted at DBKP at Blogger.