Indecent Exposure – Black and White

If you are found guilty of indecent exposure among other possible punishments you will most likely find yourself on the registered sex offender list. Here is a map of the U.S. with the number of registered sex offenders by State:

There are several crimes that will end up causing you to get your name added to the registered sex offender list, one crime is indecent exposure and it certainly is not the worst possible offense that will land you on this list. However, it’s an example of one that seems to be very subjective. Last month (October 2009) there were a couple of cases which I think are interesting as they point out that what everyone thinks or assumes is indecent varies pretty wildly. While this can lead to interesting discussions and even heated debates, the reality of the situation is that as a matter of law whether an act is indecent or not varies by State and to a wide degree by the people investigating the situation. Take for example two recent cases that were in the news and posted all over the Internet.

The first case is the case of Eric Williamson, the Virginia man that was arrested for making breakfast and coffee in the nude… okay that’s not the whole story. Apparently he was sipping coffee in clear view of a window that faced a public sidewalk. A mother and child were walking by, took offense and called the police. This resulted in the police arresting Williamson and charging him with indecent exposure. Williamson was in the privacy of his own home true enough, but does that really protect him from an indecent exposure charge? Would a reasonable person do what he did? I don’t think so. It’s one thing to drink coffee naked in an interior room of the house completely out of the view of anyone passing by your house and quite another to stand in front of your window in plain view of the public, butt naked sucking down your favorite home-brewed java.

So I did a little bit of research on the Internet as believe me this could go on for days (the research) if I didn’t cut it off at some point. Let’s just say there are thousands of cases of indecent exposure on the Internet to read about. Anyway here is the most basic legal definition I could find:

Indecent exposure is a crime that is defined as exposing one’s genitals or socially deemed “private parts” (such as behind or breasts) in a public place where others are present and may witness the act. A person who commits indecent exposure does so intentionally with an understanding that his/her conduct will likely alarm and offend others.

Well, that’s a tough one… Did Williamson intentionally expose himself? Does lack of common sense come intoplay here at all? In a case like this how does one exactly prove that Williamson had intent to expose himself to the mother and child walking by the house. Well, I still think he is guilty because a reasonable person would close the blinds, drapes, etc. and simply just not do what this jackass did. I also just have a problem with giving a person a pass because they are a moron.

In a another recent case (October 2009) we have the story of a 33 year-old Pennsylvania man, Michael Parziale. Well if all cases were this clear, everything would be a lot easier. Okay so this idiot allegedly takes pleasure in sitting in his car in public places with his door open and then masturbating while women walk by (well he also is allegedly perfectly comfortable walking up to women and doing the same thing). Okay, so that is a clear case of indecent exposure. This guy is clearly exposing his private parts intentionally in a public place and should be quite certain that this will both alarm and offend just about anyone with a brain. The only question here is… Why? What can cause someone to behave in such a bizarre way? There can be no doubt that the indecent exposure laws were clearly written to protect the public from people like Parizale.

So in this sometimes crazy world where it can be pretty hard to shock people where do we draw the line? Do we arrest everyone that comes close to the line (like Williamson) or do we just go after the people that completely blow past the line and blatantly violate the law (like Parizale)? Obviously, we don’t really have to choose… Breaking the law is breaking the law and there is no such thing as only breaking the law a little bit. Like many things though it is not 100% black and white and there is at least a little bit of gray involved. I guess in either case the judge or jury will take the decision in the cases of Williamson and Parizale. The moral of the story is if in doubt… throw on a pair of pants, a robe, ANYTHING!