on Thursday 22 October 2009

by Wendy McElroy





29-year-old Eric Williamson says he walked into his kitchen to make coffee. Since he was home alone, he didn't bother getting dressed. A woman and a young boy walking outside saw Williamson through the window and called police. Investigators then arrested Williamson because they believe he wanted people outside to see him naked. But Williamson says that's not the case. He says he should be able to walk around naked in the privacy of his own home. If convicted, Williamson could face up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine.



A few details of the story are contested by the Peeping-Tomasina neighbor. For example, she claims it was 8-something in the morning instead of 5:30, as Williamson contends thus eliminating the question "What the hell was she doing walking with her young son before dawn?" But the above account is basically accurate. Without commenting on the cultural hysteria and political totalitarianism that leads to a man being arrested for making coffee in his own home, several aspects of the story jump out at me.



--this is how easy it is to be arrested on a sex-related charge these days. This is how ridiculous the charges may be. When someone is on a sex registry, you should always ask "what was the charge?" The person could be 'guilty' of nothing more than public urination in a park or having had sex with a girlfriend who was one year younger.

--I note that the man's name is disclosed; in some stories his photo is included. I note the woman is given anonymity even though she cannot be considered off-limits -- e.g. as a rape victim. This gender bias is typical in the reporting of most sex incidents.

--the arrest is also typically gender biased. If a man had made the same call about a woman who was naked in her own home, he would have been arrested as a Peeping Tom.

--the woman was trespassing on Williamson's property -- she cut across his front yard -- yet no charges were brought against her. Nor was it asked 1) why she looked into the window of a neighbor while committing trespass, or 2) did she have to invade his property to see through the window.

--the charge of indecent exposure requires an intent to be seen, which the arresting policeman cited. How could Willaimson predict that the woman would trespass at the exact moment he was making coffee in his kitchen?

--the arrest came only after the policeman had checked with Commonwealth's Attorney's Office (Va.'s term for D.A.) and was "given the green light." This means the charge did not result from a rogue cop who acted like an idiot.

--I note Williamson has a 5-year-old daughter and I assume, since he reportedly lives with roommates, that he is estranged from the mother. I hope she is a fair, decent human being because this charge alone -- should the mother pursue the matter -- could result in his losing all visitation with his little girl. .

--the presence of the 7-year-old child raises this case into the realm of official hysteria -- a place where it is possible that Williamson will be convicted even though he is patently innocent of wrongdoing. Innocence is no defense against a sex crime when a child is even peripherally involved.

A man was arrested for indecent exposure for being naked in his own kitchen. WTRV reports the circumstances:A few details of the story are contested by the Peeping-Tomasina neighbor. For example, she claims it was 8-something in the morning instead of 5:30, as Williamson contends thus eliminating the question "What the hell was she doing walking with her young son before dawn?" But the above account is basically accurate. Without commenting on the cultural hysteria and political totalitarianism that leads to a man being arrested for making coffee in his own home, several aspects of the story jump out at me.--this is how easy it is to be arrested on a sex-related charge these days. This is how ridiculous the charges may be. When someone is on a sex registry, you should always ask "what was the charge?" The person could be 'guilty' of nothing more than public urination in a park or having had sex with a girlfriend who was one year younger.--I note that the man's name is disclosed; in some stories his photo is included. I note the woman is given anonymity even though she cannot be considered off-limits -- e.g. as a rape victim. This gender bias is typical in the reporting of most sex incidents.--the arrest is also typically gender biased. If a man had made the same call about a woman who was naked in her own home, he would have been arrested as a Peeping Tom.--the woman was trespassing on Williamson's property -- she cut across his front yard -- yet no charges were brought against her. Nor was it asked 1) why she looked into the window of a neighbor while committing trespass, or 2) did she have to invade his property to see through the window.--the charge of indecent exposure requires an intent to be seen, which the arresting policeman cited. How could Willaimson predict that the woman would trespass at the exact moment he was making coffee in his kitchen?--the arrest came only after the policeman had checked with Commonwealth's Attorney's Office (Va.'s term for D.A.) and was "given the green light." This means the charge did not result from a rogue cop who acted like an idiot.--I note Williamson has a 5-year-old daughter and I assume, since he reportedly lives with roommates, that he is estranged from the mother. I hope she is a fair, decent human being because this charge alone -- should the mother pursue the matter -- could result in his losing all visitation with his little girl. .--the presence of the 7-year-old child raises this case into the realm of official hysteria -- a place where it is possible that Williamson will be convicted even though he is patently innocent of wrongdoing. Innocence is no defense against a sex crime when a child is even peripherally involved.

