Libertarian approach/solution to flashing/exhibitionism

[lib3rtarian]

Libertarian approach/solution to flashing

I had an interesting discussion the other day with a friend. One curious topic was flashing. My friend came down heavily on the side of treating it as a sex-offense, jailing him, giving the person a permanent criminal record etc. Me, not so much. My position doesn't stem from being lax on sexual perversion, but because of the fear of the authorities framing the wrong/innocent guy. For example, I theoretically agree with the idea of a death penalty (an eye for an eye), but in practice, I don't agree to it, after I've read of cases where innocent men have been put on death row, only to be exonerated based on DNA evidence like 20 years later. (Basically Ron & Rand's position.) OK, so the man was freed, but the State took away 20 precious years of his life, which is unconscionable to me.

Also, how does libertarianism apply to this "crime"? Is this a victimless crime? Is a right being violated here? I certainly don't want any female member of my family being flashed at, and I'll probably be totally livid if it happens, so maybe I can't think straight there. I do know that this is not even nearly as grave as rape or even groping. After all, the victim does have the option to look away, come to think of it. Should it be treated more seriously if the victim is under-age? Currently I believe flashing is a grave offense in all 50 states.

Thoughts?

EDIT: My first version of this post treated flashing and exhibitionism synonymously. It has since been pointed out that they aren't. Hence I am removing all references to exhibitionism so as not to muddy the waters. The discussion is about "flashing", as in "exposing oneself where one is not supposed to, in front of people who aren't expecting it. e.g. in a park, bus etc." I can't edit the poll, so the poll still refers to exhibitionism. Interpret it as "flashing".

 

[TonySutton]

It amazes me how prudish Americans are when it comes to nudity.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

umm, yeah. what business is it of the state if someone decides to go clothing optional.

now if a restaurant or someplace wants to put up a sign saying shirt and shoes required - we might be approaching what could be considered a "crime" if that was violated, but not really...

prudish people - jeesseee!

-t

 

[fisharmor]

In a stateless world, free market judges would be left to decide whether the woman who put three 38 slugs in the chest of a flasher had a reasonable expectation that the man was going to attempt to force himself on her.

I think those judges would probably agree that unless she walked across the town square clocking the guy who was flashing someone else, and that she was definitely targeted by the flasher, then yes, she had a reasonable expectation.

I believe that in a stateless society, legal apparatuses would have a vested interest in disseminating prior judgments and legal principles to the people affected by those legal principles. Such organizations would be truly devoted to the prevention of crime. They wouldn't send officers to your house to prone you out while berating you for not knowing all 20,000 lines of state code and which particular subsection you were going to jail for violating: organizations that were getting paid to provide justice would figure out pretty quickly how to advise its clients prior to crimes getting committed.

"If you take a defensive driving class, your auto insurance rate will go down."
becomes
"If you take a fundamental principles of free market law class, your legal insurance rates will go down."

That class will include "Don't go showing your junk to everyone, because you're gonna get shot, and we're not going to defend you when it happens."

Contrast that to the current system, which seems to take delight in its "wards" not knowing what the rules are. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and there's no such thing as mens rea.

 

[fisharmor]

BTW I had to go with "no victim no crime" because it includes exhibitionism.
Flashing is something else entirely.

 

[acptulsa]

The problem with having such laws is if you want to have a place where consenting nudists can go, setting it up, shutting it down, setting up a new one, or moving it to another place takes an Act of Congress (or the city commission or whatever). That usually involves a repeal of the old law, and repealing a law is like opening a new jar of pickles--you know it's possible but that doesn't mean you can accomplish it.

The problem with not having such a law is pretty soon you have makers of porn from all over the world shooting in your town square, because everyone else does have laws against it.

 

[lib3rtarian]

BTW I had to go with "no victim no crime" because it includes exhibitionism.
Flashing is something else entirely.

Please edify me. I was thinking they were the same thing.

Or are you thinking something like the following?

Exhibitionism - a person who likes to undress with his/her window drapes open.
Flashing - a person who exposes his/her genitals to the opposite sex. e.g. park, bus etc.

I meant exhibitionism and flashing both to be the latter. If your definition is the above, then yes, exhibitionism is frivolous in comparison to flashing.

 

[TonySutton]

BTW I had to go with "no victim no crime" because it includes exhibitionism.
Flashing is something else entirely.

Can you please share your definitions for flasher and exhibitionism because my understanding is they are synonymous.

 

[acptulsa]

Please edify me. I was thinking they were the same thing.

Or are you thinking something like the following?

Exhibitionism - a person who likes to undress with his/her window drapes open.
Flashing - a person who exposes his/her genitals to the opposite sex. e.g. park, bus etc.

I meant exhibitionism and flashing both to be the latter. If your definition is the above, then yes, exhibitionism is frivolous in comparison to flashing.

Exhibitionist--could be a flasher, could be a stripper, could be neither, could get naked anywhere and get arrested, could get naked only at a local nude beach, could live in a nudist colony and be happy (except in January, of course), could be law abiding in a place with no nude beach or other outlet and be miserable.

Flasher--someone who is focused on exposing themselves where they're not supposed to in front of people who aren't expecting it.

 

[lib3rtarian]

Exhibitionist--could be a flasher, could be a stripper, could be neither, could get naked anywhere and get arrested, could get naked only at a local nude beach, could live in a nudist colony and be happy (except in January, of course), could be law abiding in a place with no nude beach or other outlet and be miserable.

Flasher--someone who is focused on exposing themselves where they're not supposed to in front of people who aren't expecting it.

OK, then I definitely mean the latter. Let's keep the discussion to that category. I definitely do not want to criminalize strippers, nude beaches etc. That's consenting adults doing their thing. I'd probably be mortified to go to a nude beach myself, but I definitely defend others' right to do so.

 

[fisharmor]

If I was a judge, in a free market justice system actually concerned with justice, I would draw a distinction between acts like streaking, and acts like flashing.

I had typed up a good bit of a response with examples but then I realized that I don't have a problem with women doing it and I pretty much do have a problem with guys doing it.

It may have to do with men being generally more predatory.

Regardless, some distinction would need to be drawn, and some terminology employed, to distinguish things like political speech on the one hand, and an obvious attempt to damage the psyche of the viewer.
Like I said above, if you walk up to a 15 year old girl and flash her unexpectedly and four seconds later you're on the ground bleeding out, that should stand up legally.

If you're running naked through a college cafeteria and someone hunts you down and kills you, that should not stand up legally.

Neither case should be cause for criminal punishment of the exhibitionist. I'm merely drawing distinctions between what should be permissible response from the "victim".

 

[lib3rtarian]

I had typed up a good bit of a response with examples but then I realized that I don't have a problem with women doing it and I pretty much do have a problem with guys doing it.

I too have this dilemma. If I was 15 and a older woman flashed me, that would have been the best day of my life. But I can also see why it would traumatize a 15 year old girl. Putting it another way, I don't care if a 50 year old woman flashes my 15 year old son, but I do care if a 50 year old man flashes my 15 year old daughter.

Like I said above, if you walk up to a 15 year old girl and flash her unexpectedly and four seconds later you're on the ground bleeding out, that should stand up legally.

Should it? Is death an appropriate response for flashing? I have trouble with reconciling the seriousness of the two. Also, what right is being violated here?

 

[TonySutton]

I too have this dilemma. If I was 15 and a older woman flashed me, that would have been the best day of my life. But I can also see why it would traumatize a 15 year old girl. Putting it another way, I don't care if a 50 year old woman flashes my 15 year old son, but I do care if a 50 year old man flashes my 15 year old daughter.

It amazes and saddens me that our culture draws a distinction between these two examples.

So for the sake of argument, what if a 50 year old man flashes a 15 year old male or a 50 year old woman flashes a 15 year old female?

 

[fisharmor]

Is death an appropriate response for flashing? I have trouble with reconciling the seriousness of the two. Also, what right is being violated here?

No, no it's definitely not an appropriate response for flashing.
Where I'm going with that is, did the 15yo girl have a reasonable expectation that this isn't where it was going to stop.
If I was judging that case, I would ask questions like:

How many other people did he flash?
Did the girl see him flashing other people?
Was he singling out young girls?
Was this a total surprise to the girl?
Was it in a public place?
Was it daytime or night?
If at night, was it well lit?
Were there other witnesses?
Was the girl alone?
Does the girl show remorse?
Are there any holes in her story?

If it happened at night, in a poorly lit alley, by surprise, and the only witnesses were not known to be watching by either party, then yeah, it's totally justified.
I would pull back from that position depending on circumstances - gradually and slowly. I would tend to side with the girl... provided it's been established he actually did flash her... but there would be a point, long before "daytime-crowded plaza-she saw him do it to three other grandmothers first", where I would rule against her.

 

[Christian Liberty]

No, no it's definitely not an appropriate response for flashing.
Where I'm going with that is, did the 15yo girl have a reasonable expectation that this isn't where it was going to stop.
If I was judging that case, I would ask questions like:

How many other people did he flash?
Did the girl see him flashing other people?
Was he singling out young girls?
Was this a total surprise to the girl?
Was it in a public place?
Was it daytime or night?
If at night, was it well lit?
Were there other witnesses?
Was the girl alone?
Does the girl show remorse?
Are there any holes in her story?

If it happened at night, in a poorly lit alley, by surprise, and the only witnesses were not known to be watching by either party, then yeah, it's totally justified.
I would pull back from that position depending on circumstances - gradually and slowly. I would tend to side with the girl... provided it's been established he actually did flash her... but there would be a point, long before "daytime-crowded plaza-she saw him do it to three other grandmothers first", where I would rule against her.

Well, yeah, one should always err on the side of innocent until proven guilty.

That said, I can't see how flashing someone is "per say" an aggressive action.

That said, I can't imagine anyone who would be "OK" with their child getting flashed. And I doubt many private properties would allow that either. And rightly not, IMO.

I see no "good" solution to this on "public" property.

 

[fisharmor]

So for the sake of argument, what if a 50 year old man flashes a 15 year old male

If the 15yo isn't into it, he can say so, and if the 50yo presses the issue, then a 15yo male should be able to contend with a 50yo male physically, if it comes down to it. No reasonable judge is going to entertain a suit by a 50yo male because a 15yo repeatedly kicked him in the nuts after he said he didn't want to be flashed anymore.

But still, no criminal charges there, because 15yo male needs to take care of himself without the authorities getting involved.

or a 50 year old woman flashes a 15 year old female?

Different, because 15yo female is less likely to be able to contend with 50yo female physically.
Same response, though: if 15yo female doesn't like it, she can tell her to stop.
If she doesn't stop, then the question isn't about the flashing anymore. 50yo female might as well be holding a boom box in her face while she's walking down the sidewalk, or calling her names repeatedly, or any one of a million other behaviors generally accepted as something to get you punched in the nose eventually.

 

[Czolgosz]

No victim.

No crime.

 

[angelatc]

My answer isn't shown there. The states and local communities have the right to dictate local standards.

 

[dannno]

Where is Suzanimal? She has a great picture to post (or at least she'd posted it before), unless somebody else can find it.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Flashing could probably be handled with existing local laws regarding lewd behavior or harassment. Flashing infers there is a specific target or targets for the flash. Of course there are additional laws if the person follows, touches or attempts to touch the victim. Obviously sexual assault and rape would be the next level, and there are certainly laws for that.