Abuse recovery - Five Years in Prison for Peeping

Author

Five Years in Prison for Peeping

Eric Cordian

2004-08-25, 11:16 am

The charge of "using a minor for a sex act" seems a bit of a stretch here.

I don't think we even give five years in prison to parents who starve
their children to death.

It's sad when pranks are raised to the level of more serious crimes
through the magic of victimology-babble.

The trend seems to be to take minor crimes, and apply laws which were
passed for entire different things, in order to manufacture huge
sentences. Like charging drug dealers with distributing a "chemical
weapon," or a kid who tells his obnoxious teacher to "stuff it" with
making a "terrorist threat."

The Patriot Act, for instance, is being used almost exclusively against
ordinary crimes by American citizens to get longer sentences, as opposed
to being a tool to protect us from foreign "terrorists", which was how it
was sold to the public.

I think this is a worrysome trend.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...0,3358990.story

-----

WEST COVINA, Calif. -- The former manager of a Hooters restaurant was
sentenced to five years in prison Tuesday on charges he secretly
videotaped job applicants as they changed into their skimpy uniforms.

Juan Martin Aponte, 32, pleaded no contest in July to eavesdropping and
using a minor for a sex act.

Authorities alleged that between November and February, Aponte recorded
job applicants in a trailer as they changed into the Hooters uniform,
which consists of a low-cut tank top and tight shorts.

....

--
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Dragonlady

2004-08-25, 11:16 am

According to your own link, this guy was not just "peeping". He was
videotaping. He could have done anything with those tapes, including
selling them or putting them on the internet, but most likely he was using
them to jack off, hence the charge of "using a minor for a sex act". In any
case, videotaping people changing clothes without their permission,
regardless of their age, *should* get him jail time, and I don't feel sorry
for him. He's an XXXXXXX.

"Eric Cordian" <emc@artifact.psychedelic.net> wrote in message
news:412bd5c2$0$449$a726171b@news.hal-pc.org...
> The charge of "using a minor for a sex act" seems a bit of a stretch here.
>
> I don't think we even give five years in prison to parents who starve
> their children to death.
>
> It's sad when pranks are raised to the level of more serious crimes
> through the magic of victimology-babble.
>
> The trend seems to be to take minor crimes, and apply laws which were
> passed for entire different things, in order to manufacture huge
> sentences. Like charging drug dealers with distributing a "chemical
> weapon," or a kid who tells his obnoxious teacher to "stuff it" with
> making a "terrorist threat."
>
> The Patriot Act, for instance, is being used almost exclusively against
> ordinary crimes by American citizens to get longer sentences, as opposed
> to being a tool to protect us from foreign "terrorists", which was how it
> was sold to the public.
>
> I think this is a worrysome trend.
>
>
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...0,3358990.story
>
> -----
>
> WEST COVINA, Calif. -- The former manager of a Hooters restaurant was
> sentenced to five years in prison Tuesday on charges he secretly
> videotaped job applicants as they changed into their skimpy uniforms.
>
> Juan Martin Aponte, 32, pleaded no contest in July to eavesdropping and
> using a minor for a sex act.
>
> Authorities alleged that between November and February, Aponte recorded
> job applicants in a trailer as they changed into the Hooters uniform,
> which consists of a low-cut tank top and tight shorts.
>
> ...
>
> --
> Eric Michael Cordian 0+
> O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
> "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

cal

2004-08-25, 11:16 am

"Eric Cordian" <emc@artifact.psychedelic.net> wrote in message
news:412bd5c2$0$449$a726171b@news.hal-pc.org...
> The charge of "using a minor for a sex act" seems a bit of a stretch here.

yes... the punishment fits the crime like a tight little tank top and a
skimpy pair of shorts.

> I don't think we even give five years in prison to parents who starve
> their children to death.

no?

> It's sad when pranks are raised to the level of more serious crimes
> through the magic of victimology-babble.

no babble here that i could see. crime victims refusing to be victims,
that's good.

> The trend seems to be to take minor crimes, and apply laws which were
> passed for entire different things, in order to manufacture huge
> sentences.

this XXXXXXX used his hiring authority and workplace facilities to
manipulate underage girls into taking their clothes off and to film them
without their knowledge in 180 instances. some prank. boffo yoks. i
rolled in the aisle. next we'll get the skit where a bunch of them haul him
into civil court and leave him without so much as a fig leaf to hold in
front of his slim jim. now that's gonna be a real knee-slapper.

i find the american justice system a tad theatrical at times, but in this
case even that feature is singularly apt. here is justice not only being
done, but being seen to be done. good stuff. tasty.

> Like charging drug dealers with distributing a "chemical
> weapon," or a kid who tells his obnoxious teacher to "stuff it" with
> making a "terrorist threat."
>
> The Patriot Act, for instance, is being used almost exclusively against

<yawn>
goodness, wouldja look at the time.

Panther

2004-08-25, 11:16 am

Sorry, I disagree. The problem is not that he got too much time, but that
others haven't been getting enough.

What he did was wrong and deviant. Probably better he got caught now than
three years from now when he could very conceivably gone to base 10 instead
of 5. It's a progressive thing.

Panther

"Eric Cordian" <emc@artifact.psychedelic.net> wrote in message
news:412bd5c2$0$449$a726171b@news.hal-pc.org...
> The charge of "using a minor for a sex act" seems a bit of a stretch here.
>
> I don't think we even give five years in prison to parents who starve
> their children to death.
>
> It's sad when pranks are raised to the level of more serious crimes
> through the magic of victimology-babble.
>
> The trend seems to be to take minor crimes, and apply laws which were
> passed for entire different things, in order to manufacture huge
> sentences. Like charging drug dealers with distributing a "chemical
> weapon," or a kid who tells his obnoxious teacher to "stuff it" with
> making a "terrorist threat."
>
> The Patriot Act, for instance, is being used almost exclusively against
> ordinary crimes by American citizens to get longer sentences, as opposed
> to being a tool to protect us from foreign "terrorists", which was how it
> was sold to the public.
>
> I think this is a worrysome trend.
>
>
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...0,3358990.story
>
> -----
>
> WEST COVINA, Calif. -- The former manager of a Hooters restaurant was
> sentenced to five years in prison Tuesday on charges he secretly
> videotaped job applicants as they changed into their skimpy uniforms.
>
> Juan Martin Aponte, 32, pleaded no contest in July to eavesdropping and
> using a minor for a sex act.
>
> Authorities alleged that between November and February, Aponte recorded
> job applicants in a trailer as they changed into the Hooters uniform,
> which consists of a low-cut tank top and tight shorts.
>
> ...
>
> --
> Eric Michael Cordian 0+
> O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
> "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Eric Cordian

2004-08-25, 11:16 am

Dragonlady <dragonlady@cableone.net> wrote:

> According to your own link, this guy was not just "peeping". He was
> videotaping.

Yes, I pasted the part of the story that said he was videotaping.

I don't think using "peeping" in the subject was erroneous, however.

> He could have done anything with those tapes, including
> selling them or putting them on the internet,

Ah yes, the time-honored "could have", "might have", "could have done",
"may have been."

That reminds me of how the media always tries to calculate the maximum
number of minors a person might have been near during their day, and then
say something like "police are worried there may have been hundreds of
victims." Particularly when the charge is something like one count of
having 25 year old illegal computer porn.

Had this individual embarrassed these job candidates by turning their
Hooter's dressing experience into a web site, additional legal remedies
would have been appropriate. But there's really no evidence of any intent
to distribute the material. I don't think it's appropriate to grasp for
"could have" in order to rationalize an absurdly long sentence.

> but most likely he was using
> them to jack off, hence the charge of "using a minor for a sex act".

Which brings us to another characteristic of the Sex Abuse Agenda which
I've always found odd. It's not really about "helping victims" as much as
it is about "hurting perverts." It really is an ideological movement
comprised of people with far too much interest in what their neighbors are
jacking off to.

As a person who's never had even a microscopic amount of interest in what
my neighbors, or other members of my community, jack off to, I find this
preoccupation misplaced.

I think laws which prohibit "using a minor for a sexual act/performance",
are designed to preclude those things in which a sexual act or performance
is solicited from a minor. If we extend the definition to a sexual act
inspired by the minor, performed by someone else, of which the minor is
unaware, it seems you could convict someone for jacking off to the Sears
Catalog, which would probably be a bad idea.

This really falls into the category of "Voodoo Molestation", in which
sexual objectification of a child harms that child vicariously, or harms
children as a class vicariously, even if the child has long sense died of
old age. Again, probably a bad idea.

> In any
> case, videotaping people changing clothes without their permission,
> regardless of their age, *should* get him jail time, and I don't feel sorry
> for him. He's an XXXXXXX.

Oh absolutely. He's an XXXXXXX, and the women involved have a perfectly
legitimate right to be pissed.

I just think this is a case where burning the tapes, smashing his
camcorder, making him write profound letters of apology, and some
community service at a shelter for "peeped-at" women, would have sufficed
as punishment. Especially given that he is probably now the laughing
stock of the community.

Five years in prison, with people convicted of crimes far more serious
than camcordering, is just going to produce a hardened angry person with
additional criminal skills, who will be released back into society seeking
retribution after being XXXXed over completely out of proportion to his
transgression.

Probably not prudent public policy, even if it gives victims yet another
cherished pound of someone's flesh.

--
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Eric Cordian

2004-08-25, 11:16 am

Panther <panther@asarian-intl.org> wrote:

> Sorry, I disagree. The problem is not that he got too much time, but that
> others haven't been getting enough.

> What he did was wrong and deviant. Probably better he got caught now than
> three years from now when he could very conceivably gone to base 10 instead
> of 5. It's a progressive thing.

This kind of sounds a little like the tactics of some extremist anti-porn
activists, who have constructed their doctrine by force-fitting the
vocabulary of opiate addiction onto sexual activity and pornography.

So readers of porn become "users", and they have to keep "progressing to
worse and worse pornography", until finally they "can't help themselves"
and have to have the "real thing."

Of course, sex and jabbing a chemical-filled needle into your arm are
really very unrelated things, and everything that real science knows about
human sexual behavior suggests that the "progression" bit is grossly
oversold.

It's a bit like the logic behind punishing kids 100 times worse for every
little thing, because the slightest bit of defiance "leads to" adult
criminal behavior.

In reality, when you overpunish little things, you just make enemies you
have to deal with later.

--
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Dragonlady

2004-08-25, 11:16 am

"cal" <cal1360@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2p2a6gFfkd2aU1@uni-berlin.de...
> "Eric Cordian" <emc@artifact.psychedelic.net> wrote in message
> news:412bd5c2$0$449$a726171b@news.hal-pc.org...
here.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> yes... the punishment fits the crime like a tight little tank top and a
> skimpy pair of shorts.
>
>
> no?
>
>
> no babble here that i could see. crime victims refusing to be victims,
> that's good.
>
>
> this XXXXXXX used his hiring authority and workplace facilities to
> manipulate underage girls into taking their clothes off and to film them
> without their knowledge in 180 instances. some prank.

You know, there's one thing that confuses me. It says this guy was a
manager at Hooters. Isn't that a topless bar?
Why are they hiring minors?

boffo yoks. i
> rolled in the aisle. next we'll get the skit where a bunch of them haul
him
> into civil court and leave him without so much as a fig leaf to hold in
> front of his slim jim. now that's gonna be a real knee-slapper.
>
> i find the american justice system a tad theatrical at times, but in this
> case even that feature is singularly apt. here is justice not only being
> done, but being seen to be done. good stuff. tasty.
>
>
> <yawn>
> goodness, wouldja look at the time.
>
>

Panther

2004-08-25, 11:16 am

"Eric Cordian" <emc@artifact.psychedelic.net> wrote in message
news:412c062b$0$450$a726171b@news.hal-pc.org...
> Panther <panther@asarian-intl.org> wrote:
>
that[vbcol=seagreen]
>
than[vbcol=seagreen]
instead[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> This kind of sounds a little like the tactics of some extremist anti-porn
> activists, who have constructed their doctrine by force-fitting the
> vocabulary of opiate addiction onto sexual activity and pornography.
>

Gee to me it sounded like someone who knows sex offenders, reads
professional journals on treatment of sex offenders, has interviewed many in
jail and has hands on experience in treating sex offenders in groups and
privately.

But go figure.

> So readers of porn become "users", and they have to keep "progressing to
> worse and worse pornography", until finally they "can't help themselves"
> and have to have the "real thing."
>

You'd be surprised how many sex offenders do feel that like a kid who first
started stealing a few dimes from Mama's purse, then candy from the store,
etc (I think you get the picture) do feel that their progress to offending
was progressive.

> Of course, sex and jabbing a chemical-filled needle into your arm are
> really very unrelated things, and everything that real science knows about
> human sexual behavior suggests that the "progression" bit is grossly
> oversold.
>

No they are not at all alike.

If "real science" is suggesting that "progression" is grossly oversold then
I'd suggust you read up a little more on it or at least also read the
studies that do not already agree with your own personal viewpoint.

> It's a bit like the logic behind punishing kids 100 times worse for every
> little thing, because the slightest bit of defiance "leads to" adult
> criminal behavior.
>

Apples and oranges, quite different, except that they are both fruits.

Actually it's been my experience that most of the criminals I interviewed,
whose crimes were of violence, had lived under similarly horrendous as
children or teens.

> In reality, when you overpunish little things, you just make enemies you
> have to deal with later.
>

Perhaps to you it is a little thing. It's sexually deviant and invasive.
Given 5 years he'd most likely be out in 3. He has passed the point of
drilling a hole and peeking in the girls gym locker room. He will most
likely get some sex offender treatment while in prison (which he needs).

Panther
> --
> Eric Michael Cordian 0+
> O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
> "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Eric Cordian

2004-08-25, 11:16 am

Dragonlady <dragonlady@cableone.net> wrote:

> You know, there's one thing that confuses me. It says this guy was a
> manager at Hooters. Isn't that a topless bar?
> Why are they hiring minors?

"Hooters" is a chain of family restaurants, believe it or not. The
breasts of the waitresses are covered by the costume.

The breast theme is kind of like the healthy wholesomeness of Daisy in the
"Dukes of Hazard." It's like IHOP with jugs.

--
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Panther

2004-08-25, 11:16 am

"Eric Cordian" <emc@artifact.psychedelic.net> wrote in message
news:412c29f2$0$446$a726171b@news.hal-pc.org...
> Dragonlady <dragonlady@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>
> "Hooters" is a chain of family restaurants, believe it or not. The
> breasts of the waitresses are covered by the costume.
>
> The breast theme is kind of like the healthy wholesomeness of Daisy in the
> "Dukes of Hazard." It's like IHOP with jugs.
>

Guess that wasn't enough for him. He preferred to see them with a little
less on.

> --
> Eric Michael Cordian 0+
> O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
> "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Dragonlady

2004-08-25, 11:16 am

"Eric Cordian" <emc@artifact.psychedelic.net> wrote in message
news:412bfd65$0$450$a726171b@news.hal-pc.org...
> Dragonlady <dragonlady@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, I pasted the part of the story that said he was videotaping.
>
> I don't think using "peeping" in the subject was erroneous, however.
>
>
> Ah yes, the time-honored "could have", "might have", "could have done",
> "may have been."
>
> That reminds me of how the media always tries to calculate the maximum
> number of minors a person might have been near during their day, and then
> say something like "police are worried there may have been hundreds of
> victims." Particularly when the charge is something like one count of
> having 25 year old illegal computer porn.

I'm still trying to figure out how a Hooters manager was hiring a minor in
the first place. I see on closer reading that Hooter's isn't a bar like I
thought, but I'm pretty sure they serve liquor. Can they hire minors?

> Had this individual embarrassed these job candidates by turning their
> Hooter's dressing experience into a web site, additional legal remedies
> would have been appropriate. But there's really no evidence of any intent
> to distribute the material. I don't think it's appropriate to grasp for
> "could have" in order to rationalize an absurdly long sentence.
>
>
> Which brings us to another characteristic of the Sex Abuse Agenda which
> I've always found odd. It's not really about "helping victims" as much as
> it is about "hurting perverts." It really is an ideological movement
> comprised of people with far too much interest in what their neighbors are
> jacking off to.

A lot of people don't get the difference. I do. Victims may or may not be
helped by seeing the offender punished. The point of punishment, however,
is not to help the victim. It's to prevent the offender from repeating the
offense.

> As a person who's never had even a microscopic amount of interest in what
> my neighbors, or other members of my community, jack off to, I find this
> preoccupation misplaced.

Heh. I don't much care what my neighbors do in the privacy of their homes
either - provided it doesn't involve someone who doesn't want to be
involved. In this case, however mildly, that was not true.

> I think laws which prohibit "using a minor for a sexual act/performance",
> are designed to preclude those things in which a sexual act or performance
> is solicited from a minor. If we extend the definition to a sexual act
> inspired by the minor, performed by someone else, of which the minor is
> unaware, it seems you could convict someone for jacking off to the Sears
> Catalog, which would probably be a bad idea.

For all we know, that was actually a plea bargain to get a lesser sentence.
The man did plead guilty, or "no contest", and from what it says, all he was
charged with was one count - yet he had 180 recordings of women changing
clothes. He could have been charged with 180 counts of invasions of
privacy, or whatever you charge people with under those circumstances. I'd
like to see him in civil court - 180 times, once for each victim. He
wouldn't have a cent to his name.

> This really falls into the category of "Voodoo Molestation", in which
> sexual objectification of a child harms that child vicariously, or harms
> children as a class vicariously, even if the child has long sense died of
> old age. Again, probably a bad idea.

You might try asking some of the adults to whom this actually happened when
they were children how they were harmed. You might also consider how you
would feel if you suddenly found out that someone had taken nude photos of
you without your knowledge and used them to jack off to in the privacy of
his home. It's a creepy feeling.

sorry[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Oh absolutely. He's an XXXXXXX, and the women involved have a perfectly
> legitimate right to be pissed.
>
> I just think this is a case where burning the tapes, smashing his
> camcorder, making him write profound letters of apology, and some
> community service at a shelter for "peeped-at" women, would have sufficed
> as punishment. Especially given that he is probably now the laughing
> stock of the community.

I think they should have used his camcorder to take pictures of him dancing
around in the nude, and showed them in the public square to anyone who
wanted to see them, while he stood by and watched, preferably in some
old-fashioned stocks. But then, I'm a believer in making the punishment fit
the crime. There's a creepy feeling in discovering that someone has been
watching you in that manner without your knowledge that cannot be assuaged
by an apology. And he certainly deserves to be the laughingstock of the
community.

> Five years in prison, with people convicted of crimes far more serious
> than camcordering, is just going to produce a hardened angry person with
> additional criminal skills, who will be released back into society seeking
> retribution after being XXXXed over completely out of proportion to his
> transgression.

The worst of it is, you're probably right about that.

> Probably not prudent public policy, even if it gives victims yet another
> cherished pound of someone's flesh.

I prefer my solution. :P

Dragon

Dragonlady

2004-08-25, 11:16 am

"Eric Cordian" <emc@artifact.psychedelic.net> wrote in message
news:412c034a$0$450$a726171b@news.hal-pc.org...
> cal <cal1360@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
this[vbcol=seagreen]
being[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I'd disagree on that point. I think this sentence was grossly excessive,
> and not comparable to lighter sentences given for lots of crimes that harm
> people more, but don't have the magic "creepiness" factor associated with
> secret taping and possible purple helmet polishing.

I have to agree with this, partly because he'd probably have gotten an even
longer sentence if he'd robbed a bank by breaking into the vault somehow and
stealing money.

Eric Cordian

2004-08-25, 11:16 am

Panther <panther@asarian-intl.org> wrote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
> Gee to me it sounded like someone who knows sex offenders, reads
> professional journals on treatment of sex offenders, has interviewed many in
> jail and has hands on experience in treating sex offenders in groups and
> privately.

The opiate metaphor began with Charlies Keating's "National Coalition
Against Porn," financed with stolen S&L money, and the darling of the
right wing's attempt to wipe smut from the face of the planet. It was
propaganda, about on the intellectual level of "This is your brain on
drugs."

It is unfortunate its vocabulary and nonsense has steeped into allegedly
professional circles, with some help from fellow travellers like
Finkelhor.

"Treatment of sex offenders", unlike physics and math, is not an area
where there is one demonstrably correct answer to everything known, which
others may reproduce. ANd you know what they say about basing anything on
prison populations.

[vbcol=seagreen]
> You'd be surprised how many sex offenders do feel that like a kid who first
> started stealing a few dimes from Mama's purse, then candy from the store,
> etc (I think you get the picture) do feel that their progress to offending
> was progressive.

Just as having a brain tumor doesn't make one into a neurosurgeon, being a
sex offender doesn't make one an authority on human sexual behavior.

One of the problems with the entire Sex Abuse Agenda is that it confers
authority status on victims and perps, the least likely people to have an
unbiased objective view of what is really going on.

I always laugh when I see one of these people going on and on about "the
mind of a sex offender," and then you find the person's qualifications are
that they are, for instance, "the mother of a molested child." And before
that, they were a clerk at Wal-Mart, or a security guard, or some such
thing. Before you know it, they are "starting their own organization."

With "science" like this, it's no wonder the "progression" metaphor
doesn't get debunked.

[vbcol=seagreen]
> No they are not at all alike.

> If "real science" is suggesting that "progression" is grossly oversold then
> I'd suggust you read up a little more on it or at least also read the
> studies that do not already agree with your own personal viewpoint.

Most studies that don't think this is all complete nonsense, suffer from
building their conclusions into their definitions, anecdotal evidence,
extrapolation from offender populations to the general public,
buzzwordology, and other sins of faulty thinking too numerous for me to
wade through them and try to make corrections.

Besides, as one researcher put it, "it is currently impossible to get
funding to scientifically research the psychosexual development of any
organism higher than a mollusk."

[vbcol=seagreen]
> Apples and oranges, quite different, except that they are both fruits.

> Actually it's been my experience that most of the criminals I interviewed,
> whose crimes were of violence, had lived under similarly horrendous as
> children or teens.

[vbcol=seagreen]
> Perhaps to you it is a little thing. It's sexually deviant and invasive.

And naughty, and wrong, and it's a sin, and... and....

> Given 5 years he'd most likely be out in 3. He has passed the point of
> drilling a hole and peeking in the girls gym locker room. He will most
> likely get some sex offender treatment while in prison (which he needs).

Many years ago, when the world was sane(er), the advice of the "experts"
was that voyeurs and exhibitionists were harmless people, and should be
laughed at. They were entirely different people than violent sex
offenders, like rapists, and one should not worry too much about them, or
punish them too severely.

I don't know if you are old enough to remember those days.

Then, with the rise of various political movements, victims rights,
radical feminists, etc.. A bit of revisionism took place, and now we
arrest five year olds in kindergarten and put them on the sex offender
registry, because they flashed Mr. Happy at a classmate, and rationalize
it by saying this is the only way they can "get the help they need" and we
have "stopped them before they grew up to be a violent sex criminal."

I'll leave it to you to try and figure out which of these mutually
contradictory positions made the most sense.

Punishing people for what they "might do", rationalized using junk
science, is a very slippery slope.

--
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Dragonlady

2004-08-31, 11:06 am