Althouse: "The problem is that the state criminal charge of lewd and lascivious behavior includes an 'element of exposure.'"

June 7, 2011

"The problem is that the state criminal charge of lewd and lascivious behavior includes an 'element of exposure.'"

Does that mean you can do what you want as long as you've got gray underpants or whatever draped around it?

32 comments:

TWM said...: "Full Monty" or nothing . . .; 6/7/11, 3:02 PM
traditionalguy said...: If European speedos are legal, then do we make male erections in them crimes, or hard nipples in women's T-shirts crimes? Let's not go there trying to hurt the Wild Weiner but hurt ourselves in the process.; 6/7/11, 3:05 PM
gerry said...: We have confused liberty with libertinism.

Some day soon, we won't be able to agree upon what the threshold for "lewd" or "lascivious" is.

Those who disagree with whatever will be morally fashionable at that time will require sensitivity training. Or some such.; 6/7/11, 3:09 PM
Naked Surfer said...: It may mean that the other mysterious and “pornographic” picture which Andrew Brietbart is holding back, and which Brietbart has vowed in his all-loving mercy not to release, will end up being released under subpoena or some other form of criminal discovery, so as to leave no gray (underwear) areas in the law.

Aka, when it comes to the wiener, a “hard” case may make a good law.; 6/7/11, 3:10 PM
traditionalguy said...: Nevermind. I read the article. The legalists in Madison are only angling for more revenue from a new Public Pervertedness misdemeanor. If that works, can they bring in even more money from men caught with long noses in public?; 6/7/11, 3:10 PM
Fred4Pres said...: No Weiner tag for this one? I know Weiner has not been charged with anything (at least not yet). But this story does have a cross over issue, especially on the 'element of exposure.' Which did not exist with the widely reported tweet but may have existed with the 'x-rated' message Breitbart did not disclose.; 6/7/11, 3:13 PM
Ann Althouse said...: I think the city of Madison has a problem of guys walking around with their hands in their pants. They follow young women around.; 6/7/11, 3:14 PM
Naked Surfer said...: What?; 6/7/11, 3:15 PM
mccullough said...: Are their no fathers in Madison to take care of these perverts? That's the problem with a college town. The men are total pussies. It's like Europe.; 6/7/11, 3:17 PM
Naked Surfer said...: ... I was just trying to picture that, when I realized I don’t want to. No pics please .; 6/7/11, 3:17 PM
Fred4Pres said...: Two young women (including a 15-year-old) called police to report a man following them on South Randall Avenue, masturbating. He had his hand in his pants but the witness couldn't say whether his penis was ever exposed, although he was "definitely pleasuring himself." The man denied doing anything illegal, telling police "I didn't ejaculate and nobody saw me."

The lewd and lascivious behavior statute is one that needs some work. Most would agree a man following those girls and pleasuring himself in such a manner is something that should treated as a criminal manner. It is terribly offensive and potentially very dangerous (such a person could likely go beyond being offensive).

But the law does need to be defined in a manner to capture this very threatening behavior with out being so broad that a guy at the beach or a kid in school who has a reaction and pops a pup tent gets dragged in.; 6/7/11, 3:21 PM
Known Unknown said...: pops a pup tent

These are all the rage in Madison currently.; 6/7/11, 3:25 PM
AllenS said...: Ann Althouse said...
I think the city of Madison has a problem of guys walking around with their hands in their pants. They follow young women around.

Nobody ever caught a sexually transmitted disease with his hands in his pants.; 6/7/11, 3:27 PM
test said...: "He had his hand in his pants but the witness couldn't say whether his penis was ever exposed, although he was "definitely pleasuring himself." The man denied doing anything illegal, telling police "I didn't ejaculate and nobody saw me.""

Now we know what Jeremy does when he's not wasting our time here.; 6/7/11, 3:32 PM
Toad Trend said...: @AA

"I think the city of Madison has a problem of guys walking around with their hands in their pants. They follow young women around."

Does Madison allow 'utes' to walk around with their 'draws' pulled down?

A distinction without much of a difference perhaps?

wv - jacclas; 6/7/11, 3:34 PM
Fred4Pres said...: Marshall, that was very good.; 6/7/11, 3:38 PM
Seeing Red said...: An element of exposure?

I think it's safe to say some of us didn't want to be exposed to this, does that count?; 6/7/11, 3:40 PM
chickelit said...: Look, the guy said he didn't think he was doing anything wrong so there was no hypocrisy involved.

He was just pulling a "weiner."; 6/7/11, 3:45 PM
traditionalguy said...: If these hands in the pocket guys were chanting, "This is the people's pants" while they pursued life with liberty to happiness, then the Madison City Government would start pass a resolution to encourage this brave exercise of male civil rights to masturbate in public. They would quote the pro-abortion argument that, "If women had balls, there would be no law against men masturbating in public".; 6/7/11, 3:45 PM
Mark O said...: Ann Althouse said...
I think the city of Madison has a problem of guys walking around with their hands in their pants. They follow young women around.

So, how does she know that? And, why? And, how does that make her feel?; 6/7/11, 3:47 PM
Naked Surfer said...: "... Capt. Cam McLay, it's difficult to quantify the problem or focus on repeat offenders ..."

Someone last night made a funny crack about Bayesian stats, but here, law enforcement aims at quantifying the problem.

Not a bad idea for typical Bayesian objectives of ruling in/out false positive/negatives (feh, Bayesian, frequentists – all the same), but is the desire to quantify criminal behavior enough justification to pass a law?

Feels like a dumb question. I don’t know the answer. Seems like a lot more is needed. Curious how/whether quantification plays any part (none, some, a lot) in making something criminal.

Funny that the behavior can’t be quantified for lack of clarity in the statute, but the estimated revenue sure can be, "there will likely be an increase in General Fund revenues derived from fines ranging from an estimated $20,000 to $50,000."

Hilarious. Follow the dough.

If the fine is stiff enough to beat down the stiffness of the offense (and generate all that revenue), imagine Madisonian defenses, “I wasn’t whacking off your honor, just applying preparation H to my itchy, highly contagious, fatal, puss-oozing infection, as exhibit A will show ... wanna see?”; 6/7/11, 3:50 PM
Curious George said...: A few years ago a creepy dude was taking photos of kids at Miller Park. IIRC the father of one figured out what he was doing and got into it with the guy, but they couldn't press charges because no law had been broken. I also remember the father being at risk for arrest because of assault. I would beat the dude and take the camera phone and leave my fate to a jury personally.; 6/7/11, 3:51 PM
DADvocate said...: Hanging a towel on mine seems to work.; 6/7/11, 3:54 PM
erictrimmer said...: Just about everyone agrees that following a 15-year-old girl and masturbating should be illegal, but the issue here is whether or not Madison needs a new law to address it? The story doesn't give enough information for the reader to decide.

These kinds of stories ought to include the text of the law or at least link to a source where we can read that text.; 6/7/11, 3:54 PM
Triangle Man said...: So, how does she know that? And, why? And, how does that make her feel?

Because she read TFA?; 6/7/11, 3:54 PM
edutcher said...: If a guy's walking around in his underpants, which happen to be standing at attention, I'm willing to bet he's got a problem with the Constabulary.

mccullough said...

Are their no fathers in Madison to take care of these perverts? That's the problem with a college town. The men are total pussies. It's like Europe.

If said fathers perform the suggested course of action, they will almost certainly get busted for taking the law into their own hands.

Which, of course, is what said perverts did first.; 6/7/11, 3:58 PM
DADvocate said...: My first wife's father would mow his lawn wearing a white t-shirt and boxer shorts underwear. He live on a fairly busy thru street. No one thought much of it although it struck some as weird.

He was a university professor, conservative, religious and as straight as an arrow. Absolutely nothing deviant. I hope they're careful when they right the law.; 6/7/11, 4:07 PM
David said...: The best part is that he may not have violated Congressional ethics. They will have to find some prohibited use of government facilities to hang him with an ethics violation.

A week of bald-faced lying on national television about a matter of importance is not a violation of Congressional ethics.; 6/7/11, 4:55 PM
mccullough said...: DADAdvocate,

Your father-in-law also wore dark socks and sandals and smoked a pipe when he mowed the lawn, right?; 6/7/11, 4:59 PM
DADvocate said...: Your father-in-law also wore dark socks and sandals and smoked a pipe when he mowed the lawn, right?

No white socks with old fashion slip canvas shoes, similar to these except the rubber trim was all white. He never smoked.

He was a child of the Great Depression who grew up on a farm in Blue Mound, Kansas. He was quite frugal and never bought something on a whim. If a pillow case got a hole in it, he would double it up with another pillow case that had a hole so that each cover the hole in the other. Practical to a fault.; 6/7/11, 5:26 PM
MadisonMan said...: Madison has enough laws.

Re: Mr Hand-in-Pants: Miss Being Followed should learn rapid knee placement. In fact, I think just being confronted would be willywilting for him.; 6/7/11, 5:50 PM
TWM said...: "I think the city of Madison has a problem of guys walking around with their hands in their pants. They follow young women around."

Hmmm, did Al Bundy retire to Madison?; 6/8/11, 6:17 AM