Larry Craig Epilogue (For Now)
---
I've had to leave the following comment, or something similar, at three blogs and in an email, so I might as well post it here:
Yes it is a proper function of government to criminalize Larry Craig's conduct. Those who disagree are, based on what I've read, wilfully omitting key facts:
--Like how Craig peered into the stall through the door crack to the point where the sergeant could see that he had blue eyes.
--Like how Craig intentionally and offensively touched the sergeant's foot. In another context that could be called "battery."
--Like how Craig intentionally and offensively reached into the sergeant's stall with his hand, to the point where he could see Craig's wedding ring. In another context that could be called "assault."
--Like how there is no duty for someone in a toilet stall to indicate non-consent. I should not have to say to a leering pervert, "Go away. I'm not interested." (Compare: Does leaving my front door unlocked constitute "consent to be burglarized"?)
--Like how the "interference with privacy" charge was not "thrown out" but was dismissed as part of the plea bargain. Had Craig pleaded Not Guilty, then he would have indeed gone to trial on the Peeping Tom charge, not just the lesser Disorderly Conduct charge that is now on his record.
Bottom line: Craig was not "arrested for foot-tapping." It's inaccurate and disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
If the purest expression of libertarianism is the "right to be let alone," then surely that includes "while in a toilet stall." And if there is such a right, then there is at least some police power to guard that right.
Where every commentator I've read has been spot on, meanwhile, is in asking why the airport didn't just hire a porter or steward to monitor the restrooms. Why a sting operation, even given the apparent history of lewd conduct there? A quest for fines? Anti-gay bigotry? This is a vital question that ought to be asked — and answered. In that I think we are all in agreement. I raised a similar question in my first post on the subject.
Yes it is a proper function of government to criminalize Larry Craig's conduct. Those who disagree are, based on what I've read, wilfully omitting key facts:
--Like how Craig peered into the stall through the door crack to the point where the sergeant could see that he had blue eyes.
--Like how Craig intentionally and offensively touched the sergeant's foot. In another context that could be called "battery."
--Like how Craig intentionally and offensively reached into the sergeant's stall with his hand, to the point where he could see Craig's wedding ring. In another context that could be called "assault."
--Like how there is no duty for someone in a toilet stall to indicate non-consent. I should not have to say to a leering pervert, "Go away. I'm not interested." (Compare: Does leaving my front door unlocked constitute "consent to be burglarized"?)
--Like how the "interference with privacy" charge was not "thrown out" but was dismissed as part of the plea bargain. Had Craig pleaded Not Guilty, then he would have indeed gone to trial on the Peeping Tom charge, not just the lesser Disorderly Conduct charge that is now on his record.
Bottom line: Craig was not "arrested for foot-tapping." It's inaccurate and disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
If the purest expression of libertarianism is the "right to be let alone," then surely that includes "while in a toilet stall." And if there is such a right, then there is at least some police power to guard that right.
Where every commentator I've read has been spot on, meanwhile, is in asking why the airport didn't just hire a porter or steward to monitor the restrooms. Why a sting operation, even given the apparent history of lewd conduct there? A quest for fines? Anti-gay bigotry? This is a vital question that ought to be asked — and answered. In that I think we are all in agreement. I raised a similar question in my first post on the subject.
Related Posts (on one page):
Posted by Kip on
29 August 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
