After I posted the article, I came to basically the same conclusion haven did: that it was a weakness in the voyeurism law the court was addressing. I also get the feeling that the prosecution didn't take the right approach. Of course, I'm not a lawyer nor do I live in Washington, but couldn't they also press charges for creating child p*rnography or sexual harrassment or sexual assault. If a man got down on all fours, and physically looked up a woman's skirt, I don't think they'd charge voyeurism but something more along the vein of a sexual assault. Why would a camera be much different?
i am a lawyer and i'll admit to feeling stupid and a bit embarassed after reading haven's post...i should have read the entire article in detail before going off the handle like that...the sad thing is i know it won't be the last time i do that.
Is this sexual assault? If it is then I think that the courts ruled incorrectly. If it is not a crime, then videotaping (while wrong) should not be a crime either. Is it OK for a man to get on all fours in a public place? I think that this is legal. If a woman in a skirt walks by, is it a crime for the man to look up?
The court could only rule on the crime the defendant was charged with. Sexual assault would be a tough time to prosecute with this guy. You'd be hard pressed to find the victims (They'd be tough to identify from the pictures), much less get any testimony from them. The distributing p*rnography charges would be easier to stick.
