Standing to Sue

A woman is indicted for hiring a stripper for her 16 year old son’s birthday party. She is being charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor and involving a minor in lewd acts. She would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn’t been for the meddling people at the drug store where she took her photos to be developed. The store employees saw that there were minors in the pictures and notified authorities. In addition to her son there were about 10 other minors at the party, some of whom were not related to the defendant.

Point number one: Next time use a digital camera. This whole mess could have been avoided.

Point two, I certainly wouldn’t hire a stripper for my son. But if this woman wants to make that judgment call concerning her own kid, I don’t have a problem with it. That is no business of mine and it’s not one for society either. If the kid is 16 we can presume he already has hormones and thinks about this kind of stuff every 30 seconds or so anyway. I don’t think with this act she has created a Frankenstein who is going to go and ruin society. Now on to the only real area of contention here:

Point three (you’ll note my numbers are sequential because I’m a genius): If parents of the other minors at the party wanted this woman prosecuted then I say go ahead with it. This woman has no right to make a moral judgment call regarding my child if my child is a minor (my property). But if she notified those parents ahead of time and they said the stripper thing was not a problem, that is what is known in legal terms as an ‘easement’. Kind of like two neighbors who live side by side and the one who owns the driveway gives the other permission to drive through it so he can get to his parking spot in the back. “I might get in trouble for having a stripper around your kid” “I don’t have a problem with it, I give you permission.” “Okee dokey.”

I am already aware that under criminal law consent is not required from the victim for charges to be filed and that the standing to sue does not rest with the victim but with the government in order to protect ‘society’, but the will of the other parents should be the crux of the issue. In cases like this I contend that if the other parents gave their consent then society has not been harmed at all. And what is the legislative intent of codifying criminal law in the first place? To punish those who harm society!

A police spokesman quoted in the article is, predictably, not concerned so much with the protection of society as he is with the fact that the law was broken:

Police spokesman Don Aaron said minors are not permitted in adult establishments. “A person shouldn’t be allowed to circumvent that law by hiring a stripper, a lady who took all her clothes off and spent a good amount of time dancing around minors,” he said.

The law as an end unto itself indeed.

The prosecutor should consider using his discretion to drop this case. As a member of society I say I have not been harmed. My rights as a parent have not been violated because my children didn’t go. If the only kids who were exposed to the naked lady were there with the permission of their parents then no rights were violated there either. If this is the case then the only culprits involved are the photo developers and the evil prosecutor.

But if the parents of the other children present only found out after the fact then I say prosecute because in that case this woman made a judgment call she was not authorized to make.

There. I made it through a whole post about a naked chick without getting nasty.

11 Responses to “Standing to Sue”

  1. Citizen Quasar says:

    I heard that condems are available from guidance counsellors in many schools nowadays. We didn’t have this service available when I was a kid. (Being 48, I am “old school” and had many a paddle broken over my ass by school officals.)

    I think that it is all a power grab. I mean, like, why do they give out free condems at school but don’t want people to learn how to use them at some guy’s “home-schooled” birthday party?

  2. Mexigogue says:

    When I was fourteen my mom didn’t get me a stripper. She said “You’re too ugly to score so you might as well forget about it.” THen she gave me a beer.

  3. Citizen Quasar says:

    PS.

    Things ARE getting better. When I was in college 30 years ago, I was in the skydiving club. We made a film with a bunch of skydiving shoots on it and we sent it in to get it developed.

    The scenes with everybody jumping out of the airplane and free-falling in the nude, including SOME females, were deleted by Eastman Kodak.

  4. Phelps says:

    FYI – the legal concept you are looking for isn’t easement, it is “waiver”.

    And we never had professional strippers. That is why God gave us cousins. And hot aunts.

  5. HMT says:

    hahahaha mexi..

    beer is better than strippers anyway. and less chaffing.

  6. Jeremy says:

    So you think children are “property” of the parents? Interesting…

  7. Mexigogue says:

    Yes. It makes more sense like that. You don’t get a soul until you’re 18.

  8. Jeremy says:

    I agree – it does make more sense.

  9. Phelps says:

    I think children should be chattel. Really.

  10. Mexigogue says:

    Good call on the “waiver” thing Phelps. I only took X amount of law classes (paralegal program) so my legal knowledge is limited. I therefore think of all property as driveways so I can apply the easement thing. It gets pretty problematic though.

  11. idiot says:

    i am an idiot and i am lead by richard simmons