This is a delightful little statute. It bans “Lewdness involving a child” within the state of Utah.
I quote:
A person is guilty of lewdness involving a child if the person under circumstances not amounting to rape of a child, object rape of a child, sodomy upon a child, sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, or an attempt to commit any of those offenses, intentionally or knowingly:
(a) does any of the following in the presence of a child who is under 14 years of age:
(i) performs an act of sexual intercourse or sodomy;
(ii) exposes his or her genitals, the female breast below the top of the areola, the buttocks, the anus, or the pubic area:
(A) in a public place; or
(B) in a private place under circumstances the person should know will likely cause affront or alarm or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of the actor or the child;…(iii and iv omitted)
I’m going to pare this down for you a bit:
A person is guilty of lewdness involving a child if the person [does not commit or attempt to commit a more serious sexual crime, but]:
(a) does any of the following in the presence of a child who is under 14 years of age:
(ii) exposes the female breast below the top of the areola
(B) in a private place under circumstances the person should know will likely cause affront or alarm or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of the actor or the child;
Got that? Exposing a female breast in the presence of a child, while in a private place, is a crime if anyone will “likely” feel affronted or alarmed.
Interesting little statute there. I’m sure it would never be abused by any misogynistic prosecutors in the United States. Especially not in a state as friendly as Utah, for Mormon Heaven’s sake! No, I’m sure that they would reserve it for egregious behavior like …
Tilli Buchanan, 27, … and her husband had been installing drywall in the garage and had taken off their shirts that were itchy from the fibers, she told The Salt Lake Tribune.
When her stepchildren, aged 9, 10 and 13, walked in, she “explained she considers herself a feminist and wanted to make a point that everybody should be fine with walking around their house or elsewhere with skin showing,”
Well there was that consequential condition on the actus reus that involved some sort of distress. This doesn’t sound like quite enough to …
The charges were filed after the children’s mother told that authorities she was “alarmed”
Ah. So a mom hates her ex’s new wife enough that she got her arrested on charges of “lewdness” because she was doing the exact same thing as the ex (removing clothes itchy from drywall contamination), something that anyone might do in their own home. That makes more sense. Gotta protect the kids from seeing their step-mom’s boobies. At least the punishment should be proportionate given the wisdom of the Utah legislature and its…
If convicted, Buchanan faces imprisonment [for a maximum of 364 days – cd], fines up to $2,500 and the requirement to register as a sex offender for 10 years.
DAMN. Well, at least exposing your nipple in your own house isn’t a felo…
Lewdness involving a child is a third degree felony if at the time of the violation:
… (ii) the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section.
So children walking in on you while your top is off in your own home is a misdemeanor the first time. The second time it happens, you can be punished
by an indeterminate prison term of up to five years, and a fine of as much as $5,000 [oh, and by the by, they make your sex offender registration permanent].
Well. I guess that is serious. They’ll probably lose their house too, with no one out of prison to work and pay the mortgage…
Though her husband was similarly clad, he was not charged with a crime.
But… but…
Fuckit. Utah, you are fucking horrible.