“The debate is on over whether people who have sex in a public place should be labeled as sex offenders. In this case, two men admit they had sex in a Sioux Falls park. But now they’re fighting the charges because if they plead guilty, they would be required to register as sex offenders. Today’s testimony lays out what Dick Moss and Ron Miklos admit happened on a warm February afternoon underneath the railroad bridge in Elmwood park. They approached two undercover officers, who today say they were investigating complaints of sexual activity going on in the park. One of the officers told the men ‘we’re looking for a show’ and ‘I like to watch.’ Miklos then told the officers ‘we’ll give you a show if you watch out for the cops.’ After the men started performing oral sex, the officers arrested them. But lawyers for the defendants say that because the men believed the officers wanted to see the oral sex and no one else was around, the charge of indecent exposure doesn’t stick. Prosecutors say because the act happened in a public park, that shouldn’t matter. Before the trial, the defense lawyers indicated they plan to argue that a less-serious charge called public indecency would have been more appropriate. That wouldn’t require them to register as sex offenders.” — Keloland (US)

It is unfortunate that Mr. Moss and Mr. Miklos told the undercover officers to “watch out for the cops,” because it clearly implies that they knew they were about to engage in something illegal. Then again, they have been perfectly willing to admit that they engaged in oral sex in the park. The point at issue is not that they committed a crime but which crime they committed — indecent exposure, which requires them to register as sex offenders, or public indecency, which doesn’t.

Common sense would say that it cheapens the value of a sex offender registry to add these two guys. While they knew they were breaking the law, they believed that there was consent all around — they were happy to blow each other, and they believed the undercover agents wanted to watch. There was no apparent intent to hurt anyone. Where’s the crime? Who was hurt by the whole business? Some abstract “public” who might in principle be offended by their indecency? It’s like the old saw about a tree falling in the woods when no one is there to hear it. No member of the public saw this open air blowjob except the two members who encouraged them to get it on. Is it a crime if there’s consent all around and no other public to offend?

If two guys blow each other in the playground of an elementary school, you can understand why lawmakers might want to pursue charges. And to be fair, PervScan has never been to Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Is the railroad bridge in Elmwood Park right next to a playground? If so, then perhaps you can add a few degrees of legitimacy to the authorities’ case. If not, and if the two guys were in a relatively isolated part of the park, then the whole thing sounds like a homophobic hubbub. These guys aren’t sex offenders. You can’t compare them to rapists or child molestors. Slap them on the wrist with the lesser charge, judge, and go worry about real criminals.

VideoBox

It's like the iTunes Music Store for Porn. Download unlimited high-quality video for only $9.95/month.