Post by account_disabled on Feb 22, 2024 2:03:18 GMT -5
The lack of consensus regarding the crime of exhibitionism generates some situations of confusion among security forces and bodies. Last week, for example, the Ertzaintza arrested a man for an alleged crime of exhibitionism in a situation that raised certain doubts among the members of the police station itself.
According to article 185 of the Penal Code, “anyone who executes or causes another person to perform acts of obscene exhibition before minors or incapable persons will be punished with a prison sentence of six months to one year or a fine of six to twelve months.” . The doubt, in many cases, arises around that “ante”. Is it a crime of danger or result? Should the minor see the obscene act or is it enough that there is a possibility for the minor to see it?
The Provincial Court of Barcelona ruled on this in the middle of last year in a ruling, with a dissenting vote, which ended up confirming the sentence imposed by a Criminal Court Cayman Island WhatsApp Number on a man who had masturbated near several minors , although There was no evidence that they had seen it. The man was on the beach, outside the area reserved for nudist bathing, with groups of minors about ten meters away. Two Urban Police officers intervened and reported him after being summoned for this reason.
The man appealed the sentence of 15 months of fine because he considered that it had not been proven that his behavior was observed by minors. The Provincial Court, in its resolution 302/2022, refers to ruling 968/2009 of the Supreme Court to affirm that “ a specific fraud of involving the minor in his sexual context is not required , but it is enough simply for that conduct to be carried out.” in his sight.” Although that same ruling states that "it will be enough to prove that the events have taken place in such a way that they have inevitably been contemplated by the minor." For its part, ruling 697/2006 held that execution ““before” minors or incapable persons, although it does not follow that it is a criminal requirement that the illicit action be perceived by a minor . Or what is the same, according to most of the magistrates, "the requirements of the type are met simply by the act being carried out before minors."
Judge Yolanda Rueda Soriano, however, does not agree that typical conduct is considered consummated if the passive subject has not perceived the act. The object of protection of the crime that is analyzed is the protection of childhood , Rueda warns. “Taking into account the object of protection of said norm, I consider it necessary for the minor to have visual contact with the act of sexual content and classified as obscene.” Remember, also, that the Supreme Court Sentence 685/2018 acquitted the accused of the crime of exhibitionism because the child was asleep while the man masturbated, so that he could not see the act which, in this case there is consensus, "is not unable to assimilate or understand the scope of its meaning. In that same sense she interprets the Supreme Court ruling 968/2009. Therefore, she concludes, “she considers that exhibitionism is not a high-risk crime but requires visual contact with the obscene act.” The psychologist, jurist and member of the Ertzaintza, Erick Eduard Ruiz, who has noticed this confusion, hopes “that the Supreme Court will clear up our doubts .”
I would say that it is a crime of result, which must be seen . It can be heard that it is a crime of mere activity but not because the passive subject needs to see it for it to be consumed, but because for it to be consumed it is not necessary to encourage the desires or instincts of the minor, but it is enough to carry out the action. before the passive subject," adds a criminal lawyer.
According to article 185 of the Penal Code, “anyone who executes or causes another person to perform acts of obscene exhibition before minors or incapable persons will be punished with a prison sentence of six months to one year or a fine of six to twelve months.” . The doubt, in many cases, arises around that “ante”. Is it a crime of danger or result? Should the minor see the obscene act or is it enough that there is a possibility for the minor to see it?
The Provincial Court of Barcelona ruled on this in the middle of last year in a ruling, with a dissenting vote, which ended up confirming the sentence imposed by a Criminal Court Cayman Island WhatsApp Number on a man who had masturbated near several minors , although There was no evidence that they had seen it. The man was on the beach, outside the area reserved for nudist bathing, with groups of minors about ten meters away. Two Urban Police officers intervened and reported him after being summoned for this reason.
The man appealed the sentence of 15 months of fine because he considered that it had not been proven that his behavior was observed by minors. The Provincial Court, in its resolution 302/2022, refers to ruling 968/2009 of the Supreme Court to affirm that “ a specific fraud of involving the minor in his sexual context is not required , but it is enough simply for that conduct to be carried out.” in his sight.” Although that same ruling states that "it will be enough to prove that the events have taken place in such a way that they have inevitably been contemplated by the minor." For its part, ruling 697/2006 held that execution ““before” minors or incapable persons, although it does not follow that it is a criminal requirement that the illicit action be perceived by a minor . Or what is the same, according to most of the magistrates, "the requirements of the type are met simply by the act being carried out before minors."
Judge Yolanda Rueda Soriano, however, does not agree that typical conduct is considered consummated if the passive subject has not perceived the act. The object of protection of the crime that is analyzed is the protection of childhood , Rueda warns. “Taking into account the object of protection of said norm, I consider it necessary for the minor to have visual contact with the act of sexual content and classified as obscene.” Remember, also, that the Supreme Court Sentence 685/2018 acquitted the accused of the crime of exhibitionism because the child was asleep while the man masturbated, so that he could not see the act which, in this case there is consensus, "is not unable to assimilate or understand the scope of its meaning. In that same sense she interprets the Supreme Court ruling 968/2009. Therefore, she concludes, “she considers that exhibitionism is not a high-risk crime but requires visual contact with the obscene act.” The psychologist, jurist and member of the Ertzaintza, Erick Eduard Ruiz, who has noticed this confusion, hopes “that the Supreme Court will clear up our doubts .”
I would say that it is a crime of result, which must be seen . It can be heard that it is a crime of mere activity but not because the passive subject needs to see it for it to be consumed, but because for it to be consumed it is not necessary to encourage the desires or instincts of the minor, but it is enough to carry out the action. before the passive subject," adds a criminal lawyer.
