Florida Court declares looking up women's skirts legal if done in a public place

[Alonzo]

A judge dismissed a misdemeanor charge of voyeurism against a Pensacola man Friday, but prosecutors intend to pursue a conviction on a lesser charge.

Former teacher Brian Presken, 32, was accused of using a mirror to look under a woman's skirt last summer at Barnes & Noble Booksellers on Airport Boulevard in Pensacola.

Defense attorney Katheryne Snowden argued that the voyeurism charge should be dropped because Presken's accuser didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place under Florida law.

The law under which Presken was charged states, "It is illegal to secretly observe someone with lewd, lascivious and indecent intent in a dwelling, structure or conveyance, and when such locations provide a reasonable expectation of privacy."

Snowden said the statute her client is charged under — 810.14 — doesn't define the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy."

Judge George J. Roark III agreed and dismissed the charge Friday afternoon.

Assistant State Attorney Greg Marcille said the ruling will not be appealed.

"We intend to ask the Legislature in next year's session to consider amending the statute to cover situations such as what occurred in this case," Marcille said.

The State Attorney's Office filed a disorderly conduct charge against Presken on Tuesday, saying the facts alleged in the case support the charge.

"There is a second count of disorderly conduct that is still pending, and we intend to go forward on that count," he said.

http://www.pnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080517/NEWS01/805170332

[micfranklin]

That is so not perverted.

/sarcasm

[Alonzo]

This photo was captured as news of the ruling broke:

http://pictopia.com/perl/get_image?provider_id=193&size=550x550_mb&ptp_photo_id=3320614

[micfranklin]

He's gonna tap that ass when he gets the chance.

[Muser]

"such locations provide a reasonable expectation of privacy."

Wouldn't a skirt qualify for this?

[potter]

I'd think a woman would reasonably expect privacy UP HER SKIRT. :unreal::unreal:

What kinda fricken morons do they have down there in Florida huh? Is it the salt water? Too much Disney? What????

[4Reaganomics]

These imbeciles have taken activism to a whole new level.\

It is an absolute disgrace that underneath of a woman's skirt isn't considered "reasonable expectation of privacy"

[brien]

I can't for one second imagine what kind of "jolly" anyone would get from this type of activity. The fellow needs to be remanded to a mental ward and counsel so he can heal his sick mind. Did I read he was a former teacher? What did he teach? Morals?
I yi yi

[micfranklin]

Why look up someone's skirt when you can go home and download some porno? That makes more sense.

[Pookie]

Maybe he likes fresh meat on the hoof?
What a sicko.
No wonder men complained about more women wearing pants in the 60's!
Purrs,
Pookie

[preservanation]

HaHa...
Very funny.
This is a place where a person should have an expectation of privacy.

PuLeeeeeeeeeze!

[PatrickHenry]

Did he have a mirror on his shoe?

[micfranklin]

There's a whole lot of dirty jokes I can think of right now but I'd rather hold off on them.

[Muser]

Did he have a mirror on his shoe?

In running this by a cop friend of mine, the problem is in the wording of the the specific law pertaining to voyeurism, where "expectation of privacy" relates specifically to dwelling, place of business, locale. IOW, they screwed up by charging the guy with "voyeurism" in the first place, and instead should've charged him with something else, such as the "disorderly conduct" they're now going to attempt (and seem likely to win).

Not that I think it makes any real sense...geez, talk about hair-splitting; but as long as a "disorderly conduct" conviction carries a similar sentence as "voyeurism", I'd be satisfied with it.

Micfranklin's right...he should've just used the Interwebs, where there's no shortage of upskirt pics and vids. <ahem> So I hear.

[Alonzo]

Micfranklin's right...he should've just used the Interwebs, where there's no shortage of upskirt pics and vids. <ahem> So I hear.

So it's wrong to look up skirts, but ok to look at photos and video of other people looking up skirts and posting it online?

Or are you talking about staged photos and videos?

[Muser]

So it's wrong to look up skirts, but ok to look at photos and video of other people looking up skirts and posting it online?

Or are you talking about staged photos and videos?

The latter, though it's oftentimes difficult to detect what's staged and what isn't, generally speaking. Perusing the Internet would've been the wiser choice, as opposed to a criminal conviction on his record.

[Mia]

I don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy under my clothes?

[PatrickHenry]

I don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy under my clothes?Apparently not in Florida with mirrors and perverts around. :drool:

[preservanation]

I don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy under my clothes?Exactly my point, mia.
We all do.
Courts have ruled that once you leave your house, expectation of privacy is out the window...I would assume that once you leave your clothes the same would apply, but if you are still dressed I think the same principle of privacy would apply.
IMO, this is a violation as the courts have set out, and should be prosecuted.

[potter]

But on second glance, some airports now have machines that can see right through your clothes......

Nobody seems to have an issue with privacy under your clothing there.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

This is what happens when you allow piecemeal removal of your UNALIENABLE individual rights.....

Any excuse with a "seemingly" noble cause serves to remove your freedom.....

[Mia]

This is what happens when you allow piecemeal removal of your UNALIENABLE individual rights.....

Any excuse with a "seemingly" noble cause serves to remove your freedom.....



Which side are you defending?

My right to privacy under my skirt, or someone's right to look under it with a mirror?

[Buck Laser]

What this whole thing makes me think of is a musical review put on in Chicago back in the 70s called "Do Black Patent Leather Shoes Really Reflect Up?" It was a satire about the things the nuns told little parochial school girls--that boys could see their underwear if they wore patent leather shoes.

I never was able to get a good glimpse. But then I wasn't catholic...

[Juney]

The court got it right, here. The issue is not whether we all have a broader right to not have people look up our skirts. The issue is whether this particular defendant can be charged under this particular statute. To prove thier case, the prosecution has to show that each element of the crime is met. According to the article (I have not read this statute), it must be proven that the defendant:

1. secretly observed someone (yes)
2. with lewd, lascivious, and indecent intent (yes)
3. in a dwelling, structure, or conveyance (yes)
4. when such locations provide a reasonable expectation of privacy (uh-oh)

There's the problem. The statute states when the location itself (not the clothing you are wearing) provides a reasonable expectation of privacy--and a public store wouldn't. So under this statute, that element is not met. The problem is just in the wording of the statute, if the statute read 'where such locations or garments,' then he could ostensibly be convicted under the statute. Basically it comes down to a poorly worded statute, it just has to be re-written to include behavior such as was alleged in this case, and a good definition of what the legislature intended by 'reasonable expectation of privacy.' Without any clarity on legislative intent, a court would have little choice but to go with a literal reading of the statute itself.

Article Quote: The law under which Presken was charged states, "It is illegal to secretly observe someone with lewd, lascivious and indecent intent in a dwelling, structure or conveyance, and when such locations provide a reasonable expectation of privacy."

Snowden said the statute her client is charged under — 810.14 — doesn't define the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy."

[jafar00]

But on second glance, some airports now have machines that can see right through your clothes......

Nobody seems to have an issue with privacy under your clothing there.....


Ok by me. If an airport worker gets an eyeful of my hairy ass of generous proportion on their screen, thats their problem :lmao:

[micfranklin]

God forbid they start allowing people to ask what color your bra is...

[Troubadour]

It is an absolute disgrace that underneath of a woman's skirt isn't considered "reasonable expectation of privacy"

But peaking under women's skirts is absolutely essential to preventing another terrorist attack.

[cronic]

But on second glance, some airports now have machines that can see right through your clothes......

Nobody seems to have an issue with privacy under your clothing there.....

I have no problem with that...
because I would have nothing to hide

Men or women, shouldn't feel that would be an invasion of privacy.. Rather a security measure adopted for one sole purpose.. Public and personal safety
I think "ALL" airports should have those.

After 9/11.. It opened our eyes to the lax security we had at out airports, thus the major changes we have now today. I think that security effort is justified.
no different then the shoe bomb detector at airports.

[Charles V]

Sigh... must there be a trial for every single socially-unacceptable behaviour, regardless of how frivolous it is?

If this continues, more courts will surely need to be organized in order to deal with the massive amount of ''criminals'' ignoring this (http://www.ukstudentlife.com/Travel/Tours/England/Cambridge/KeepOffTheGrass.jpg).

[Alonzo]

Sigh... must there be a trial for every single socially-unacceptable behaviour, regardless of how frivolous it is?

If this continues, more courts will surely need to be organized in order to deal with the massive amount of ''criminals'' ignoring this (http://www.ukstudentlife.com/Travel/Tours/England/Cambridge/KeepOffTheGrass.jpg).

So looking up womens skirts should be legal?

[Charles V]

So looking up womens skirts should be legal?

No - in the same way that discretely cutting in a line is not explicitly legal either. It is not acceptable behaviour, but it is not a crime.

Enacting legislation prohibiting line-cutting, or upskirt-peaking, or stepping on grass, or anything of the sort, is superfluous and only serves to inundate the justice system with trivial and petty cases.

[Alonzo]

What about slapping random women's asses?

[Charles V]

I'm leery of any law that aims to regulate very specific and largely unimportant forms of behaviour. A society should not grow accustomed to resolving petty personal issues through the use of lawyers and the judicial system, things that should really be reserved for issues of greater gravity.

However, the example you are giving me involves unsolicited physical contact. While I still find such situation slightly ludicrous (''you slapped my ass, now I am going to sue you''), I'm sure it could be categorized as some form of minor sexual abuse. That's reasonable.

[Alonzo]

I'm leery of any law that aims to regulate very specific and largely unimportant forms of behaviour. A society should not grow accustomed to resolving petty personal issues through the use of lawyers and the judicial system, things that should really be reserved for issues of greater gravity.

However, the example you are giving me involves unsolicited physical contact. While I still find such situation slightly ludicrous (''you slapped my ass, now I am going to sue you''), I'm sure it could be categorized as some form of minor sexual abuse. That's reasonable.

And why wouldn't equipping a mirror to look up womens skirts also qualify as sexual harassment or abuse?

[Charles V]

Because it is neither abuse nor harrassment. It involves no physical contact or verbal abuse, or any form of involuntary control over the other person.

Would you be implying that if, say, a woman were to lean down, it would be criminal to not move your sight away from her? While the situation is different, the same invasion of privacy issue is present. Neither are socially acceptable behaviour, but, again, bringing legislation to deal with such situations is superfluous.

''Useless laws weaken the necessary laws.'' - Montesquieu

[Alonzo]

Charles V, I would argue that glancing or looking at other people is simply human nature and don't involve the same sort of deliberate infringement on a persons private space that equipping a mirror, or one of those x-ray camera's, to look under clothes do.

What's the distinction between that and setting up something, such as a vent with rushing air, to lift up girls skirts? Both have the same end result.

[Charles V]

There must be a point where one simply has to allow the community to ''enforce'' certain unwritten customs - such as not peaking under women's skirts. Bringing legislation into that not only, again, unnecessarily overflows the judicial system, but makes the people loose all respect for the Law.

Do we really need legislation to make sure people do not cut in lines? Or legislation prohibitting the use of certain curse words? Or legislation regulating the speed at which one may walk through a public sidewalk? Of course not. We cannot expect the Law to regulate and dictate every single action and form of behaviour of society, and we cannot expect the Law to act as a replacement for the cultural restrictions society self-imposes on itself, such as the unwritten rule of not cutting in line - or looking under girls' skirts.

Again, I'm not arguing that what the man in question did was appropriate - I'm just saying that it is simply too insignificant for the Law to deal with, and simply too funny if it did.

[Alonzo]

There must be a point where one simply has to allow the community to ''enforce'' certain unwritten customs - such as not peaking under women's skirts.

What community do you expect to enforce customs in a city? That's a silly statement really, as if the "community" did the enforcing then people really wouldn't give a damn in any city, as the "community" is not their concern and doesn't know who most people are.


Bringing legislation into that not only, again, unnecessarily overflows the judicial system, but makes the people loose all respect for the Law.

Neither of which hinges on sexual harassment issues. If anything, not enforcing this causes the loss of respect for laws.

Do we really need legislation to make sure people do not cut in lines? Or legislation prohibitting the use of certain curse words? Or legislation regulating the speed at which one may walk through a public sidewalk? Of course not.

Straw man arguments, nothing more. They have absolutely nothing in common with intentionally attempting to see under peoples clothing.

I never thought this was appropriate, but at one time I didn't take these things as seriously as I do now. I remember spending 10 minutes once on a subway (he changed seats when I changed seats) listening to some disgusting drunk guy tell me how much he wanted to fuck me and kept trying to go home with me. When I got off the subway I remember staring at the door to make sure he didn't get off (I was going to go back on the subway if he got off at the same stop) and kept looking behind me the rest of the night. Even now, years later, the guy still creeps me out when I think of him, and I remember having disturbing dreams a few times after he did that.

I bring that up because, according to you, he did nothing wrong. Following me around the subway car, after repeatedly being told to go away, and repeatedly making repeated unwanted sexual comments, seemingly wouldn't violate any law by your standard. Yet if he had groped me and then walked away, that would violate a law even though it likely wouldn't have had the same impact.

[Charles V]

What community do you expect to enforce customs in a city? That's a silly statement really, as if the "community" did the enforcing then people really wouldn't give a damn in any city, as the "community" is not their concern and doesn't know who most people are.

Might the word ''society'' as a replacement for ''community'' clear up anything? I didn't refer to a specific population, I meant to refer to society's self-imposed restrictions on individual behaviour.

Neither of which hinges on sexual harassment issues. If anything, not enforcing this causes the loss of respect for laws.

I fail to see how the absence of a piece of legislation would make the people loose respect for the Law, which would presumably still be meaningfull.

In any case, see below.

Straw man arguments, nothing more. They have absolutely nothing in common with intentionally attempting to see under peoples clothing.

Not at all. They all fall under general annoying behaviour, but which does not cause any significant harm to anyone, and therefore should not be dealt with in a court of law.


I never thought this was appropriate, but at one time I didn't take these things as seriously as I do now. I remember spending 10 minutes once on a subway (he changed seats when I changed seats) listening to some disgusting drunk guy tell me how much he wanted to fuck me and kept trying to go home with me. When I got off the subway I remember staring at the door to make sure he didn't get off (I was going to go back on the subway if he got off at the same stop) and kept looking behind me the rest of the night. Even now, years later, the guy still creeps me out when I think of him, and I remember having disturbing dreams a few times after he did that.

I bring that up because, according to you, he did nothing wrong. Following me around the subway car, after repeatedly being told to go away, and repeatedly making repeated unwanted sexual comments, seemingly wouldn't violate any law by your standard. Yet if he had groped me and then walked away, that would violate a law even though it likely wouldn't have had the same impact.

And you're the one who claims that my analogies are not accurate? What you describe is verbal sexual harrassment - again, reasonable. That is clearly not the same as peaking under a girl's skirt.

But anyway, what do you think the legal punishment should be for peaking under a girl's skirt?

[Alonzo]

Might the word ''society'' as a replacement for ''community'' clear up anything? I didn't refer to a specific population, I meant to refer to society's self-imposed restrictions on individual behaviour.

What the hell is anyone going to do? Have you ever lived in a city? People barely know their neighbor, let alone care what they think. And the odds of anyone finding out what someone does outside their property is very small. Many suburbs aren't much different.

There's no community or society to do anything, plus you don't leave law up to the mob.

I fail to see how the absence of a piece of legislation would make the people loose respect for the Law, which would presumably still be meaningfull.

In any case, see below.

The law is designed to protect, but you're advocating that it should not.

Not at all. They all fall under general annoying behaviour, but which does not cause any significant harm to anyone, and therefore should not be dealt with in a court of law.

Considering we are talking about women, I wonder if any of the women here would agree with the idea that creepy men using instruments to look under their clothing and stare at their vagina or breasts is not doing any real harm.

It's a significant invasion of privacy and that can have just as much effect as going up and grabbing someone.

And you're the one who claims that my analogies are not accurate? What you describe is verbal sexual harrassment - again, reasonable. That is clearly not the same as peaking under a girl's skirt.

Why? Saying "I want to lick your pussy" is harassment, but strapping a mirror to your shoe to look at a women's vagina isn't?

But anyway, what do you think the legal punishment should be for peaking under a girl's skirt?

That's a different conversation, and the answer would depend on the circumstances.

[Charles V]

What the hell is anyone going to do? Have you ever lived in a city? People barely know their neighbor, let alone care what they think. And the odds of anyone finding out what someone does outside their property is very small. Many suburbs aren't much different.

There's no community or society to do anything, plus you don't leave law up to the mob.

I do believe you are misinterpreting me. I am merely saying that the Law should not regulate every single form of socially-acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

That's a different conversation, and the answer would depend on the circumstances.

The answer to such a question is the basis of whether the Law should address this or not. It is not enough to just say that a certain action should be prohibitted if one cannot find appropriate, and fair, legal punishment for it.

How would you legally sentence one that has been convicted of such a frivolous ''crime''? How is it possible that a whole trial should be staged for such a petty offense?

[Alonzo]

You're calling it frivolous and petty, I'm not answering questions solely based on positions you, and thankfully no one else here, seems to hold.

You also ignored:

Why? Saying "I want to lick your pussy" is harassment, but strapping a mirror to your shoe to look at a women's vagina isn't?

[Alonzo]

You're calling it frivolous and petty, I'm not answering questions solely based on positions you, and thankfully no one else here, seems to hold.

You also ignored:

Why? Saying "I want to lick your pussy" is harassment, but strapping a mirror to your shoe to look at a women's vagina isn't?

[PatrickHenry]

Saying "I want to lick your pussy" is harassment, but strapping a mirror to your shoe to look at a women's vagina isn't? Women should wear underpants, instead of relying on gravity to render lines of sight at their vaginas unfeasible...

[Troubadour]

"Terrorists might be hiding under women's skirts. Looking under them is clearly patriotic, and necessary for the security of the American people." - Bush appointee X.

[Muser]

How would you legally sentence one that has been convicted of such a frivolous ''crime''?

It appears "disorderly conduct", a misdemeanor, applies in this case - that is what the State Attorney is going to [next] proceed with.

I'm not clear your position, Charles; is it that peeking up a woman's skirt is frivolous, no violation has occurred, and that she should just move on and forget about it? Or is it that when it occurs she should handle the matter herself in order to keep it out of the courts?

The last option certainly has possibilities; were it me, I would've opted for it and given the guy a face full of fist.

[1Samuel8]

It appears "disorderly conduct", a misdemeanor, applies in this case - that is what the State Attorney is going to [next] proceed with. Yeah and your taxes are going to pay exorbitant legal bills to resolve this petty issue. What a great bargain!



What community do you expect to enforce customs in a city? That's a silly statement really, as if the "community" did the enforcing then people really wouldn't give a damn in any city, as the "community" is not their concern and doesn't know who most people are. The security guards can solve this by throwing the guy out and publishing his name, photograph and address. This occurred in a store and the store should be responsible for providing security. This issue is between the store, the woman, the pervert and the customers.



And why wouldn't equipping a mirror to look up womens skirts also qualify as sexual harassment or abuse? Irrelevant. You are asking the wrong question.
Why should anybody else be forced to pay for the legal resolution of this trivial matter through their taxes?

[Charles V]

I'm not clear your position, Charles; is it that peeking up a woman's skirt is frivolous, no violation has occurred, and that she should just move on and forget about it? Or is it that when it occurs she should handle the matter herself in order to keep it out of the courts?

As unacceptable as the man in question's behaviour was, society should not expect to resolve every conflict, regardless of gravity, in a court of Law.

If the woman feels that the man does not have the right to act in such a way (which is likely the case), she can walk away, call him out, and/or ask that he be thrown out of the store. The man's embarrassment and likely future denial of admission to the store should be enough. I am not arguing that the woman should accept what happened, I am just saying that running off to a court of Law is taking the issue to a whole other level to which it should not pertain.

[Alonzo]

Women should wear underpants, instead of relying on gravity to render lines of sight at their vaginas unfeasible...

Guess when you have no other response you should just blame the victim.

The security guards can solve this by throwing the guy out and publishing his name, photograph and address. This occurred in a store and the store should be responsible for providing security. This issue is between the store, the woman, the pervert and the customers.

And that does what to prevent further action? I don't think someone cares if "Mark's Dollar Store" in downtown New York kicks them out, it's not like it's going to prevent them from doing it again.

People are asking for the community to deal with it. Aside from the suggestions of vigilante justice, which are problematic, there is not community that would care or be in a position to do anything in most areas.

Irrelevant. You are asking the wrong question.
Why should anybody else be forced to pay for the legal resolution of this trivial matter through their taxes?

You're calling it trivial, most people aren't.

I'm not directing this at anyone, but when people take such things lightly I often wonder if it's because they've done, or know people who've done, similar things.

[Charles V]

And that does what to prevent further action? I don't think someone cares if "Mark's Dollar Store" in downtown New York kicks them out, it's not like it's going to prevent them from doing it again.

I return to my previous argument: you cannot expect every single form of socially-acceptable behaviour to be coded in Law. And you cannot expect the judicial system to address every single demand, no matter how minor it is.

Facts forward, I'm sure the woman involved should be offended, annoyed, maybe embarrassed, but nothing else. There is no psychological damage to be reasonably claimed, and there is clearly no physical one. That individual's behaviour is rightly frowned upon, and while it might not provide a legal deterrant for such action to not be committed again, very few individuals have a total disregard for the public's level of respect towards them. And those who do, do not fret, they will likely be legally punished for something else of greater gravity that simply attempting to look under a woman's skirt.

You're calling it trivial, most people aren't.

You didn't fully address his response. It isn't trivial in the sense that it should be accepted - it is trivial in the sense that it should not be dealt with in a court of Law.

[Muser]

Aside from the suggestions of vigilante justice, which are problematic,

I prefer to look at it as self-defense of my private property. :innocent:

I understand Charles' point, but only to a degree...without legal protections currently in place for this sort of thing, I've no doubt we'd see sales of mirrored shoes skyrocket - and then where would we be?

And what of hidden pin-hole cameras in public restrooms? A device is being used in a stealthy manner to peer at a woman's private area without her knowledge and consent in a public location.

[Alonzo]

There is no psychological damage to be reasonably claimed

Violating someones private space, to the point of looking at them naked or under their clothing, against their will, has no psychological effect? Such a violation of ones private, supposedly secure, space would seem to carry psychological damage for many people.

What's the difference between doing that and quickly grabbing a women's ass in public? It's a guess, but I think most people would prefer a quick grab than someone doing what this guy did.

And those who do, do not fret, they will likely be legally punished for something else of greater gravity that simply attempting to look under a woman's skirt.

Any reason I should believe that? If you're putting mirrors on your shoe it seems like a conscious effort to go undetected and avoid grabbing, raping and other things.

[Alonzo]

I prefer to look at it as self-defense of my private property. :innocent:

I'm a bit confused, as you suggested to public the name and address so other people would see it and act.

I understand Charles' point, but only to a degree...without legal protections currently in place for this sort of thing, I've no doubt we'd see sales of mirrored shoes skyrocket - and then where would we be?

And what of hidden pin-hole cameras in public restrooms? A device is being used in a stealthy manner to peer at a woman's private area without her knowledge and consent in a public location.

I think charles' and samuel's point come down to that they don't think having people violate your space like this is a big deal

[Muser]

I'm a bit confused, as you suggested to public the name and address so other people would see it and act.l

No, that was 1Samuel8's suggestion. I'm the one that said I'd address it myself with a face full of fist (in defense of my private property, of course).

[Alonzo]

Oh, I see. My comment on vigilateism was in response to the name and address one I think.

Punching someone isn't the best idea if they're bigger than you though.

[Charles V]

I think charles' and samuel's point come down to that they don't think having people violate your space like this is a big deal

I am making a distinction between what the Law should deal with and what it should not. I am not merely dismissing the issue as insignificant.

Any reason I should believe that? If you're putting mirrors on your shoe it seems like a conscious effort to go undetected and avoid grabbing, raping and other things.

There you are selectively ignoring my post. I said that those that do not care if they are caught spying on people's private parts are completely shameless, and you would thus expect these type of people to commit other more serious offences which would require the attention of the Law.

I did not say, as you implied, that those peaking under girl's skirts are automatically criminals.

Violating someones private space, to the point of looking at them naked or under their clothing, against their will, has no psychological effect? Such a violation of ones private, supposedly secure, space would seem to carry psychological damage for many people.

I understand your point - but, really, the level of damage done, if any, is minor. Can we agree on that?

Again I ask you, what should be the legal consequences of peaking under a girl's skirt? If the consequences are to be minor in accordance to the gravity of the offfense, then surely the hazzle of utilizing the judicial system is unnecessary?

Without legal protections currently in place for this sort of thing, I've no doubt we'd see sales of mirrored shoes skyrocket - and then where would we be?

I disagree. There are no legal protections for those victims of someone cutting in line, and the problem does not get out of hand without it.

Every single ''evil'' of society cannot be solved by simply passing legislation prohibiting it. Specially when such ''evils'' are overly trivial.

[Alonzo]

There you are selectively ignoring my post. I said that those that do not care if they are caught spying on people's private parts are completely shameless, and you would thus expect these type of people to commit other more serious offences which would require the attention of the Law.

And the evidence for this is?

I understand your point - but, really, the level of damage done, if any, is minor. Can we agree on that?

No, because the level of damage could be non-existent to significant depending on the person.

Again I ask you, what should be the legal consequences of peaking under a girl's skirt? If the consequences are to be minor in accordance to the gravity of the offfense, then surely the hazzle of utilizing the judicial system is unnecessary?

A fine to jail, it all depends on how often, how persistent, the offenders history, the magnitude of the crime etc. If a kid goes out and does it once a fine or community service, plus a civil suit if the women chooses. If someone has been doing this for a long time, or putting up hidden cameras, or posting it on the internet, then maybe some sort of jail sentence is appropriate.

Any of these offenses would be more serious than speeding, which already takes up plenty of time in the judicial system.

[Muser]

Oh, I see. My comment on vigilateism was in response to the name and address one I think.

Punching someone isn't the best idea if they're bigger than you though.

It's a question of odds. Odds are a) he's a coward and would run away, and b) no shortage of people in a busy Barnes & Noble to assist in my defense, were it necessary.

That's just me, though. I fully support others who are not like me the choice of demanding satisfaction via the court for this violation. It is, in fact, a violation and only the victim has the right to determine how trivial it is (or isn't) to them and the manner in which they wish to address it (within the confines of the law, of course).

[PatrickHenry]

Any of these offenses would be more serious than speeding
Disagree. Speeding is potentially deadly.

Voyeurism, while morally distasteful, has no potential for death of the innocent.

[Charles V]

And the evidence for this is?

None other than rationalism. Shameless people tend to be the ones committing crimes, as shame is a moral deterrant to, say, stealing from a CD store.

A fine to jail, it all depends on how often, how persistent, the offenders history, the magnitude of the crime etc.

Jail, if photographs or any other form of recording device is not used, seems overly unjust.

A fine I could actually be OK with. As long as the fine isn't paid as compensation to the victim. Please no. Not only does the victim not deserve such compensation, but the number of suits for minor voyeurism would skyrocket.

Hopefully, the fact that there is no economic compensation for the victim might restrict the number of legal demands to the serious ones.

Any of these offenses would be more serious than speeding, which already takes up plenty of time in the judicial system.

Seriously?

[Muser]

I disagree. There are no legal protections for those victims of someone cutting in line, and the problem does not get out of hand without it.

Every single ''evil'' of society cannot be solved by simply passing legislation prohibiting it. Specially when such ''evils'' are overly trivial.

I really do understand the point you're trying to make - but I disagree that trespassing upon someone's private parts is equivalent to cutting in line.

Let's just say I agree that there are too many bullshit cases clogging up our courts - but this is the inevitable outcome of a rapidly expanding and squeezed society who's lost its moral compass, with a seeming rise in lack of defenses (and support) for victims. Absurd semantics and legal loopholing exacerbates the problem.

Case in point: my response would be to slap and/or punch the guy in the face. A perfectly acceptable self-defense measure, in my mind, and would settle the matter right there and then. Done. Over. Courts not involved.

Until the guy decides to file battery charges on me. And in today's court system, has more than a good chance of winning.

1950 vs. 2008.

Without a doubt, this nation has become entirely too litigious, forced to rely upon courts to settle disputes because the concept of "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" is rapidly eroding. Which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

[Alonzo]

None other than rationalism. Shameless people tend to be the ones committing crimes, as shame is a moral deterrant to, say, stealing from a CD store.

So you have no evidence then. Nice that you admit that.

Common sense is hardly common, as everyones thought process seems to have different results. Without evidence it's merely an unsupported opinion.

Seriously?

I'm not talking about the guy going 120 on a highway, I'm talking about the guy going 65 in a 55 zone.

[Muser]

I would still like someone to address this:

And what of hidden pin-hole cameras in public restrooms? A device is being used in a stealthy manner to peer at a woman's private area without her knowledge and consent in a public location.Is this or is this not the same thing as the guy with the mirror in the Barnes & Noble?

[Charles V]

So you have no evidence then. Nice that you admit that.

Common sense is hardly common, as everyones thought process seems to have different results. Without evidence it's merely an unsupported opinion.

And I thought we had actually reached a point of consensus on the discussion.

If you have a way of objectively measuring one's sensitivity to public shame, then maybe we could collect empirical evidence on the matter.

If not, I would think the statement to be generally true. Or would you not agree? In any case, that discussion seems to digress from the original topic.

I'm not talking about the guy going 120 on a highway, I'm talking about the guy going 65 in a 55 zone.

Line must be drawn somewhere. The general intention of the regulation, however, is to reduce the potential for serious physical harm. Different and incomparable to minor voyeurism laws.

And what of hidden pin-hole cameras in public restrooms? A device is being used in a stealthy manner to peer at a woman's private area without her knowledge and consent in a public location.

Similar situation.

''Jail, if photographs or any other form of recording device is not used, seems overly unjust.

A fine I could actually be OK with. As long as the fine isn't paid as compensation to the victim. Please no. Not only does the victim not deserve such compensation, but the number of suits for minor voyeurism would skyrocket.

Hopefully, the fact that there is no economic compensation for the victim might restrict the number of legal demands to the serious ones.''

[Muser]

Jail, if photographs or any other form of recording device is not used, seems overly unjust.

A fine I could actually be OK with.

And how is this fine going to be assessed?

[1Samuel8]

People are asking for the community to deal with it. Aside from the suggestions of vigilante justice, which are problematic, there is not community that would care or be in a position to do anything in most areas. People are asking? What people?


You're calling it trivial, most people aren't. Well, here is a challenge for you: show "most people" the tax bill that they have to pay for this trivial issue and then ask them what they think about it or whether they want to have a court of law deal with it.


I'm not directing this at anyone, but when people take such things lightly I often wonder if it's because they've done, or know people who've done, similar things. You can direct that stupid comment at me or anybody you like. Most of your commentary is at an even lower level of intelligence. You should not think that commentary is offensive. It is just plain stupid.

[Charles V]

And how is this fine going to be assessed?

Exactly in the same way as all fines are assessed: arbitrarily, of course.