A Colorado newspaper is running an editorial asking that a dozen streakers who were arrested in Boulder's annual Naked Pumpkin Run not be charged with indecent exposure, as it "carries the penalty of having to register as a sex offender." From The Rocky Mountain News:
But whereas none of the daytime World Naked Bike Ride participants (who protested America's dependence on foreign oil) were charged with a crime - "I think the police department tries to reflect the values of our community. . . . I think our community values are pretty tolerant of civil disobedience," Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner told The Daily Camera after the mass spokes streak - the pumpkin heads could face serious punishment that doesn't fit the prank.
As partygoers lined the Pearl Street Mall close to 11 p.m. on All Hallow's Eve, more than 100 nude runners donned pumpkins on their craniums for a traditional sprint in the buff. This time, though, a dozen of the streakers were cited for indecent exposure - a Class 1 misdemeanor that carries the penalty of having to register as a sex offender.
This would be an unusually harsh punishment for a group of revelers who included research scientists and University of Colorado students. Colorado's criminal code defines indecent exposure as knowingly flashing one's genitals in a circumstance "likely to cause affront or alarm" to the viewer. Since the late-night Pearl Street crowd was there to view the run, it's likely there was much more amusement than alarm.
If the pumpkin runners had been charged with public indecency, they would not face the stigma of being on a sex offender registry. But ironically, the criteria for public indecency - having sex or masturbating in public are among them - may be even less appropriate than indecent exposure for the nonsexual streaking that haunted Boulder.
The saga of the naked pumpkin streakers has revealed much more than sprinters' derrieres; it has also revealed the need for a legal exemption. A college prankster clearly should not be tarred with the same sex-offender status as a pervert flashing his private parts at vulnerable victims.
You think? Of course, there are a lot of other sex offenders that are completely unlike child molesters and rapists. Yet, the one-size-fits-all approach embodied in registries and residency restrictions ignores these differences. I don't think what is needed is a "legal exemption" as much as letting judges handle the decisions to put people on registries and/or apply banishment-type punishments. The lack of discretion combined with the one-size-fits-all approach create injustices on a regular basis. It just happens that the case of a few streakers garners more sympathy because most "sex offenders" don't want to make their story anymore public than it already is.
Recent Comments