Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
Representative Mike Kelley,
I am writing to you about the September 14, 2015, Springfield News Leader article discussing the new law that was passed by a 5 to 4 vote to make the cities’ “indecent exposure” law stricter. Violation of this is a criminal act under municipal law constituting a sex offense, which will require more and more people to be placed on the state’s sex offender registry for crimes having absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a sexual motivation
According to that article, “Councilman Craig Hosmer also voted against the law, saying it was poorly crafted and wouldn’t have the intended effect. “This ordinance doesn’t do anything other than make us feel like we’ve addressed the problem, when we really haven’t done that,” he said.” As is so common when laws are passed, the inevitable dilemma faced by the people is laws being enforced in ways they were not legislatively intended.
The previous City Code No 78-222 on indecent exposure purports to be predicated upon current state law RSMo 566.130. However, according to the Missouri state website no such state law exists.
The newly passed City Code requires men and women to cover 100% of their buttocks and it requires women to cover 100% of their actual breasts. As pointed out above, a violation of either of these provisions in the new City Code will constitute a sex crime of indecent exposure and requiring violators to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.
The first obvious problem here is the enforcement of the law. Springfield police officers are well known for what is called Biased-Based Policing practices. While this term is most commonly used to described racial profiling by police, “bias-based policing is the intentional practice by an individual law enforcement officer who incorporates prejudicial judgments based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, economic status, religious beliefs, or age that are inappropriately applied in the performance of his/her duties.”
Thus, the severely inherent danger here is that some heterosexual male police officer will ignore a women who shows her breasts because it is a sexual turn on, but then arrest a male who either accidently or purposefully shows any part of his buttocks. As such, enforcement of the municipal criminal law will ultimately be predicated upon sexual interests and gender bias. Moreover, I also believe law enforcement personnel will knowingly and purposefully abuse this law specifically to target sex offenders for re-incarceration out of their own personal hate for this class, should any inadvertently show the tiniest part of his or her buttocks.
There is no shortage of controversy surrounding this law. For example, this law will make it a criminal act for a female to breast feed in public places, just as it will make it a criminal act for some construction worker or even a Plummer to bend over while working and accidently show his buttocks. Notwithstanding these controversial aspects, there is a serious Neanderthal mentality to enacting laws that makes exposure of any part of the buttocks a sexual offense and thereby requiring registration as a sex offender for the rest of their life, as if they are the same as a sexual psychopath or an incurable pedophile.
While, the conservative part of me dissents against the way men and women often dress, as I believe people should have respect for themselves and others whom they are around, I also dissent against the overreach of those in government to enact laws that dictate every facet of a way a person walks, talks, breathes, and lives in a so-called free society. My dissent is certainly amplified by the never-ending media reports of these same people in government turning blind eyes to the criminal acts of the rich who engage in sexual offenses, and those in government who, themselves, engage in sex crimes.
Likewise, I am deeply concerned how this law is to be applied to a person under the age of 18 who, for example, engages in the typical juvenile pranks of "mooning" someone and the long-term consequences of branding them a sex offender because they showed their buttocks as a joke or when skinny dipping.
I would say this newly created law is a shiny example of those in government wasting tax revenue rather than solving important issues facing society, and the right wing agenda to rule the world on the premise that all are required to submit to their will.
I am writing to you about the September 14, 2015, Springfield News Leader article discussing the new law that was passed by a 5 to 4 vote to make the cities’ “indecent exposure” law stricter. Violation of this is a criminal act under municipal law constituting a sex offense, which will require more and more people to be placed on the state’s sex offender registry for crimes having absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a sexual motivation
According to that article, “Councilman Craig Hosmer also voted against the law, saying it was poorly crafted and wouldn’t have the intended effect. “This ordinance doesn’t do anything other than make us feel like we’ve addressed the problem, when we really haven’t done that,” he said.” As is so common when laws are passed, the inevitable dilemma faced by the people is laws being enforced in ways they were not legislatively intended.
The previous City Code No 78-222 on indecent exposure purports to be predicated upon current state law RSMo 566.130. However, according to the Missouri state website no such state law exists.
The newly passed City Code requires men and women to cover 100% of their buttocks and it requires women to cover 100% of their actual breasts. As pointed out above, a violation of either of these provisions in the new City Code will constitute a sex crime of indecent exposure and requiring violators to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.
The first obvious problem here is the enforcement of the law. Springfield police officers are well known for what is called Biased-Based Policing practices. While this term is most commonly used to described racial profiling by police, “bias-based policing is the intentional practice by an individual law enforcement officer who incorporates prejudicial judgments based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, economic status, religious beliefs, or age that are inappropriately applied in the performance of his/her duties.”
Thus, the severely inherent danger here is that some heterosexual male police officer will ignore a women who shows her breasts because it is a sexual turn on, but then arrest a male who either accidently or purposefully shows any part of his buttocks. As such, enforcement of the municipal criminal law will ultimately be predicated upon sexual interests and gender bias. Moreover, I also believe law enforcement personnel will knowingly and purposefully abuse this law specifically to target sex offenders for re-incarceration out of their own personal hate for this class, should any inadvertently show the tiniest part of his or her buttocks.
There is no shortage of controversy surrounding this law. For example, this law will make it a criminal act for a female to breast feed in public places, just as it will make it a criminal act for some construction worker or even a Plummer to bend over while working and accidently show his buttocks. Notwithstanding these controversial aspects, there is a serious Neanderthal mentality to enacting laws that makes exposure of any part of the buttocks a sexual offense and thereby requiring registration as a sex offender for the rest of their life, as if they are the same as a sexual psychopath or an incurable pedophile.
While, the conservative part of me dissents against the way men and women often dress, as I believe people should have respect for themselves and others whom they are around, I also dissent against the overreach of those in government to enact laws that dictate every facet of a way a person walks, talks, breathes, and lives in a so-called free society. My dissent is certainly amplified by the never-ending media reports of these same people in government turning blind eyes to the criminal acts of the rich who engage in sexual offenses, and those in government who, themselves, engage in sex crimes.
Likewise, I am deeply concerned how this law is to be applied to a person under the age of 18 who, for example, engages in the typical juvenile pranks of "mooning" someone and the long-term consequences of branding them a sex offender because they showed their buttocks as a joke or when skinny dipping.
I would say this newly created law is a shiny example of those in government wasting tax revenue rather than solving important issues facing society, and the right wing agenda to rule the world on the premise that all are required to submit to their will.
Rep Mike Kelley responded and said the city ordinance is stupid and he believes it will suffer a very quick death if challenged in court, not only because it violates state law as showing breasts and butt crack is allowed, but also because it means practically everyone in the city is going to violate such even judges, misters, and cops.
I agree, it is a very stupid law and I seriously doubt any cop is going to arrest a female for showing her breasts when the cop is turned on sexually by such. Thus, it is a law that will be discriminatory enforced based on sexual preference / interest and gender bias, which itself is enough to get the city ordinance thrown out as violating the state and / or federal Constitution.
Springfield is the bible belt of Missouri, where the right wing religious fanatics want to dominate the world and dictate everything a person does.