Comments on: Nakedly silly prosecution

By: Right to Bare Everything on trial in Fairfax today » We Love DC

Right to Bare Everything on trial in Fairfax today » We Love DC — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:50:35 +0000

[...] news blog reports that Erick Williamson’s trial for indecent exposure is today. You may remember this case from two months ago when police arrested Williamson because a woman reported that he’d exposed himself to her and her child. Whether Williamson [...]

By: buff that law « tunneling thru'

buff that law « tunneling thru' — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:02:46 +0000

[...] are some nice quips on this news article here and here and here, and a different viewpoint here, and a different time(8:30 am) which seems more likely and [...]

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:58:28 +0000

However, precedent matters more at the level of the Supreme Court than district courts. I really can’t see how they can convict a man who was being spied on. I live a couple blocks down from this guy, and now I have to think about what I’m doing in my own house because these sick, perverted women might be looking in my windows. Very unnerving.

By: Craig

Craig — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:23:12 +0000

Something to keep in mind about ‘The Law’: you can cite the Virginia Code until you’re blue in the face, but what matters is Precedent: the sum total of all rulings under any law are what determine the actual, practical meaning of the law. Basically, this law says that a set of actions constitutes a specific class of violation (class 1 misdemeanor). Precedent will probably widen that set of actions to include other behavior otherwise unanticipated or unspecified by the legislation.

What does this mean? It means that Eric Williamson may have bigger problems than a strict reading of the law might otherwise indicate.

(No, IANAL, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.)

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:56:18 +0000

Let’s have a thought experiment.

What do you suppose would have happened if we simply reversed the genders and supposed that it was a man who was trespassing on someone else’s property at 5:30 in the morning, and looking in the windows of a private residence at a naked woman?

Who do you suppose would have been arrested in that instance?

The answer is, the man of course, for being a Peeping Tom.

So why is the outcome reversed in this case? Does Virginia not have Peeping Tom laws? Remember it was the woman who was trespassing on Williamson’s property and looking through his windows into his private residence at an ungodly hour. Why wasn’t she arrested for her voyeurism?