1-16-2010 Colorado:
Garnett: 'Everyone who does something goofy' shouldn't be named a sex offender
If Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett gets his way, anyone convicted of streaking in Colorado -- including the unabashed Halloween revelers known for running naked with pumpkins on their heads in Boulder -- no longer will be forced to register as sex offenders.
Garnett has proposed legislation that would make streaking, public urination and other "Pumpkin Run-type behavior" in Colorado a petty offense rather than a class 1 misdemeanor that forces people to register as sex offenders.
If the Legislature passes Garnett's proposal to remove the acts from the state's indecent exposure law and enforce them under its public indecency law, most naked runners and others caught with their pants down would face a fine instead.
Garnett said he thinks the change would benefit authorities statewide by making the laws more enforceable.
For example, when 12 people were ticketed in 2008 for participating in the annual Naked Pumpkin Run on the Pearl Street Mall, 11 pleaded guilty to a different charge because the punishment for indecent exposure didn't fit the crime, Garnett said.
Changing the law also will keep the sex-offender label meaningful, he said.
"If everyone who does something goofy gets identified as a sex offender, it doesn't mean anything," Garnett said. "I believe it's a public safety issue."
Garnett also is proposing that the state make public masturbation a more serious crime. It's now covered under the state's public indecency law -- a petty offense -- and Garnett wants it to be a violation of the state's indecent exposure law that comes with sex-offender registration.
Garnett met with the Colorado District Attorneys Council on Friday to ask for support of his proposed legislation. The governing board voted to support it, Garnett said, and the council now is developing the specific language.
Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner said he's behind the push to take streaking out of the "sex offense" category.
Beckner said his department began working with the City Attorney's Office last year to draft a public nudity ordinance that would be more appropriate for streaking-type pranks. He expects to present something to the City Council later this year, meaning both Boulder and the state could enact laws making streaking a less-serious offense.
"We never were of the opinion that someone who is just streaking should be identified as a sex offender," he said.
Judd Golden, chairman of the American Civil Liberties Union's Boulder chapter, said his organization doesn't believe that public nudity -- by itself -- should be against the law at all.
"That is regressive," he said. "It's going back to the Victorian days when body parts were considered immoral."
If a person runs nude through a football game, Golden said, he or she should be charged with disrupting a public event. If a naked person walks into traffic, he or she should be charged with obstruction.
"But our position is that public nudity in and of itself -- absent aggravating circumstances -- should not be a criminal offense," he said.
If Garnett's proposal moves smoothly through the Legislature, the earliest it could take effect is July 1. It's unknown how quickly Boulder could enact its own public nudity ordinance. ..Source.. Vanessa Miller Camera Staff Writer
January 16, 2010
Boulder DA wants state to ease up on streakers
September 1, 2009
Sex Offender Lists Need to be For Sex Offenders, Not Pranksters
9-1-2009 National:
The recent case of Jaycee Lee Dugard, who was abducted at age 11 and held hostage for 18 years by a listed sex offender, underscores the need to continue to stop heinous sexual crimes in any way possible.
It also reminded me of some ridiculous behavior surrounding the sex offender lists here in Boulder, so I'll renew my point: let's limit the sex offender list to actual sex offenders, making the lists useful for all.
I first became aware of just how trivial some of the offenses that can land one on such a list can be a few years ago. I learned that the older brother of one of the youth hockey players on the team I coached was a registered sex offender. His crime? He swatted a female student at his high school on the rear end during his junior year.
Inappropriate? Yes. Did he need to be counseled about that behavior? Absolutely. But does this behavior alone make him a threat to the degree of someone who is a known child molester, or a monster like Phillip Garrido, who abducted, raped and held Jaycee Lee Dugard hostage? Hardly.
In Boulder last year, a highly publicized "streaking" incident has threatened to land the streakers on sex offender lists. On Halloween night 2009, the 10th Annual "Naked Pumpkin Run," a Boulder tradition where Halloween revelers run through Boulder's Pearl Street pedestrian mall wearing nothing but pumpkins on their heads, resulted in the citation and/or arrest of 12 people (it was estimated there were nearly 200 participants) on charges that could alter their lives forever.
Public nudity, in most cases, is against the law. These people knew that when they embarked on their pranks and perhaps deserve to be cited. However, this isn't even in the same category as a twisted individual exposing himself to women for shock value -- this a silly Halloween prank, and since the event is 10 years old, most people on Boulder's Pearl Street Mall that night knew of the "coming attractions." Many are there just to see the run.
I'm OK living next door to someone who streaked at 10 p.m. on Halloween. I might not be OK living next door to Phillip Garrido or someone like him. These lists need to warn us about dangerous people, not naked pranksters. Putting such people on these lists not only hurts those placed there, it severely diminishes the possible value of these lists. By making these lists over-encompassing or punitive for offenses that are clearly not sexual offenses, it diminishes, if not eliminates, any possible value.
Let's continue to do everything in our collective power to stop true sexual crimes, including ensuring the names on this list -- or any other -- deserve to be there. Let's not over-react to silly pranks. ..Source.. by Doyle Albee
August 27, 2009
CA- Judge drops mooning charges
8-27-2009 California:
STOCKTON, Calif., Aug. 26 (UPI) -- A California judge says a woman who mooned an elderly couple will not have to stand trial on a charge that might have branded her a sex offender.
San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Franklin Stephenson also ruled, however, that the defendant must stand trial on the more serious felony charge of attempting to dissuade a witness, The Stockton Record reported Wednesday.
Stephenson said he did not agree with Deputy District Attorney Stephen Taylor, who sought a misdemeanor indecent exposure charge and a felony elder abuse charge against Katherine Patterson, 58. She allegedly exposed her right buttock and thigh to people who brought charges against her daughter-in-law, the newspaper said.
Donald and Nita Reinhart were leaving a court appearance in an embezzlement case when they said Patterson told them to "kiss my ass," and dropped her pants, mooning the couple.
Stephenson said Patterson was trying to dissuade the Reinharts from continuing the case against her daughter-in-law who, they claim, bilked their charter bus company of $240,000 in cash deposits.
While the judge ruled Patterson must stand trial on the charge of attempting to dissuade a witness, he said there was no evidence the Reinharts, who are in their late 60s, suffered any effects that would classify it as elder abuse.
Taylor said Patterson and her husband were trying to bully the Reinharts into dropping their case. ..Source.. by UPI
