Underwear Theft to Be Criminalized in UK
“Perverts who steal women’s underwear from washing lines could be added to the sex offenders’ register under a crackdown to be announced by Home Secretary John Reid tomorrow. He is changing the Sexual Offences Act to add new crimes with a sexual motive including child abduction, theft and harassment. Dr Reid said: ‘There is no higher purpose for government than to protect children. That’s why I want the police and the courts to have the tools they need.’ A senior Home Office source said: ‘The point of including theft is because offences such as stealing underwear from a washing line obviously has a sexual motive. Harassment obviously includes stalking, which can increase the risk of someone committing a sexual assault.’ But he added: ‘Not all child abductions have a sexual motive. Many are likely to be carried out by parents where there are custody disputes. ‘It will be at the discretion of the courts or police if someone is added to the register for these offences.’” — BBC (UK)
One of the earliest stories featured on a fledgling PervScan concerned the United Kingdom’s landmark Sexual Offences Act of 2003. This act made a relatively reasonable attempt to update legislation concerning sexual offenses so that it dealt with the crimes of today, rather than those of the 19th century (which is when much legislation of sex crime was formulated). The act has not been without controversy, and if you read it yourself you can see where it leaves room for interpretation. For example, it defines necrophilia as the penetration of a corpse “with a part of his body or anything else” and stipulates that “the penetration is sexual.” How do you define a sexual penetration with “anything else?” A psychologist might argue that if you penetrate a cadaver with a screwdriver it’s sexual but in a deviant, roundabout way. A perp might retort that he was motivated by anger, not lust, and point out that he did not climax. How would you decide who’s right?
A similar principle applies to panty theft. Undoubtedly it often is a crime motivated by lust. Sometimes it slips over into assault or rape. But should panty theft really be a sex crime when, literally speaking, there’s no sex in it? It’s as though the legislation is moving from a prohibition of acts to a proscription of thoughts. To steal panties from a clothesline is theft. To call it anything else is to criminalize feelings, impulses, thoughts. And isn’t that a slippery slope? After all, lust motivates many other ostensibly non-sexual activities. Maybe some people derive sexual excitation from driving too fast. But does that mean they should end up on a sex offender registry for speeding?
True, there is some precedent for criminalizing intent. If you plan to kill a person, it’s a worse offense than if you just happen to do it through negligence. But in murder cases the stakes are higher and so is the burden of proof. Prosecutors have to demonstrate that a perpetrator really planned to kill another person. Will they expend the same resources to demonstrate that some perv planned to jerk off with panties he stole from a clothesline? How do you prove such a thing?
I guess you can’t also steal panties from an inebriated woman in the United kingdom, or have “a go at the bush” as it were:
Men who have sex with drunken women will be at risk of being convicted of rape under new laws to be considered by ministers.
The legal shake-up would mean a woman would be considered incapable of giving consent to sex if she had been drinking heavily.
Police would be asked to carry out blood and urine tests on a woman who complained of rape to find out how much alcohol is in her body. They would then used “back calculations” to work out how drunk she was at the time of the alleged attack.
I would like to point out, after reading this article, that another reason for child abduction, besides being a sexual motive, or related to custody problems, would be for ransom.
Another reason may be just because some man or woman is so lonely or hungry for another child that they may kidnap a child. There was an episode like that in “Different Strokes”, in which this heavyset man kidnapped Sam, that overly cute red-headed kid in the later episodes.
What I want to say is that there are many reasons for child abductions.
Another thing, unless it is proven that a guy sticks a screwdriver in a cadaver and was getting off on it, just sticking a screwdriver in a cadaver, especially if it is not in the anal or genital regions necrophelia. Like the article said, the person doing that might have been motivated by anger or frustration. If the person that is accused of necrophelia is in an angry state of mind when he was recounting the story, then he was not being necrophilic.
All comments become the property of PervScan. You must use an email address to post a comment. However, PervScan disallows email addresses in the text of comments.
Major Boobs
