By now you have probably read the story about the couple in Florida who had sex in broad daylight on a public beach. Elissa Alvarez, 20, and Jose Cabellero, 40, were busted by onlookers as they did it missionary style on the Bradeton Beach. Apparently, the couple were not covered up by a towel or hidden from the public, but their genitals were not visible so the sex was still speculation. Onlookers took a video of the couple and immediately called the police. Witnesses testified that a three-year-old girl saw the whole event.
Earlier last week, Alvarez was released from her 30-days in jail and let go after facing the court for the charge of "lewd and lascivious behavior.” She was let off but must register as a sex offender. Cabellero faces two years in jail after his hearing in July due to his criminal history of cocaine trafficking. He's also now a registered sex offender.
I can understand the charge of lewd and lascivious behavior. Put a towel on or hide behind a bush or go into the ocean to have sex. It's right there. However, this sex offender thing is a nonsensical charge that will ruin both these people's lives forever. Cabellero, if jailed which they are predicting, will receive the treatment we all know sex offenders get in jail, and Alvarez will lose employment opportunities and face public stigma. Because she screwed a guy on a beach? Isn't there a cocktail named after this exact fantasy?
Why would the legal system force this couple to be clumped in with high-risk sex offenders who participate in creating child pornography or have sexually assaulted minors and ruined their lives? How is that the same as urinating in public or having sex in a car and some square happens to see you? These are drastically different crimes, yet both make one a registered sex offender. That is a very stigmatized label to carry, especially for a couple whose real offense was a lewd act and indecent public exposure. Why is there no differentiation between high and low risk sex offenders?
"These laws destroy what's valuable about someone's freedom," University of Michigan law professor J.J. Prescott said in a recent piece published on Reason.com. "[As a registered sex offender] you're a pariah virtually everywhere, you can't live in most neighborhoods, and nobody wants to date, marry, or socialize with you. You can't find a job because no one will hire a sex offender… These laws take away their reasons for staying on the straight and narrow, for working hard to become a valuable member of a community."
On the other hand, according to the National Post, in 2008 two adult men (aged 60 and 41) video taped themselves having sex with two 14-year-old runaway teenagers in an Edmonton "crack house.” The girls had escaped from a drug treatment center and consented to the sex because they "wanted drugs.” At the time of the offense, it was still legal for adults to have consensual sex with teenagers as young as 14-years-old and this is what the Alberta Supreme Court judge used to acquit the men's charges. The law was changed to 16-years-old only two weeks later, which means that videotape is now considered child pornography. (The case will be reexamined in Supreme Court.) Under Canadian law, there's this "private use defense" people who are busted with child pornography rely on to get them out of charges. It seldom works. That's what former Vancouver city planner John Sharpe tried to claim when he was busted in 1995 with an apartment full of pornographic photos of naked teenage boys. (He was eventually convicted of possession of child pornography.)
What is your opinion on the couple in Florida? What do you think about the stigmatic label of "registered sex offender" being used to umbrella a whole range of crimes that vary in significance and detriment?
(Side note: Congrats to Caitlyn Jenner, formerly known as Bruce, who came out as a woman for Vanity Fair.)
