The Case of Jimmy

The case here is about Jimmy, a weird individual who goes out to the public and masturbates in front of people. One day he was caught playing in the children's playground while his pants were down and he had placed a newspaper on his lap. When questioned, he told the police that he had a medical condition which made him to scratch because of severe itching. When he was arrested, the police decided to search for more answers as to why the person heard terrible characters. In the process of finding any information, they came across pornographic videos and photos of children downloaded on his computer. When he was asked what they were doing there, he claimed that head had never touched or owned any of them. According to him, they were just pictures. This leads to a legal arrest.

The elements of the case

The essential aspects of Jimmy’s case are how he goes to the public and masturbates in front of people. Another element is stripping naked in a playground pack and scratching his private parts in front of everyone. Another case element is the evidence found in his computer of nude video and photos of children.

The law about masturbation

Masturbation is a situation that brings different impact in different countries, mainly if performed publicly. For instance, the penalty for the public masturbation in Indonesia is decapitation. Under Article 281 of Indonesia’s national law, the victim can be jailed up to 32 months imprisonment (Hayes 108). In the UK, under the Labouchere Amendment, public masturbation was dependent on a wide range of circumstances. In Saudi Arabia, the victim can be imprisoned up to three years (Hayes 122). Therefore, every nation has different implications when it comes to public masturbation.

The law of arresting

Anytime the police arrest someone, they usually take their fundamental rights to freedom. Therefore, several procedures should take place for the police to make a legal arrest. It is also noted that many police departments and states add particular systems designed to protect the officer’s physical safety.  Mitigate potential threats, and public indecency is the primary priorities that lead to a legal arrest. For streakers that are usually naked and don’t have any weapon, the officers will be forced to arrest them. Generally, the first step to take is to treat the individual by asking them, to go down to their knees and then they are captured (Mitchell 243).

Nudity is also generally illegal if someone is standing on someone’s property or in public. If someone goes into society without clothes, even in front of children, then the wording here is violations and vague because the matter here is that the person has violated with the standards of indecency.  Some situations, however, may have different laws due to constitutional protections for the freedom of expression, especially if the individual is part of a political demonstration or artistic performance (Mitchell 249. Under the state-by-state of nudity laws, laws have omitted nudity for the sake of brevity. Based on these claims, Jimmy has broken the law because he is not in any demonstration or doing and artistic performances. Moreover, the law also states that when an individual is found naked in public, it means that they are violating the standard of decency. Therefore the police did not commit any offense by arresting him.

Justification of the Law

After the arrest of Jimmy, the police were issued with the warrant to search his house, and while doing so, they came upon pornographic videos and photos of children downloaded in his computer. According to the law, the distribution and possession of child pornography is a crime. This is also punishable under both the federal and state laws. Usually, such incidents are found through the internet, and when one downloads the files, they can be arrested because the images have files that are mislabeled (Binder 334). Even if the person never had the intention of possessing child pornography, they should understand that element of possessing child pornography are illegal and defenseless. Jimmy is entitled to be arrested under the rules of this law because he is not supposed to be in possession of such photos. Moreover, they were found on his home computer, meaning he cannot claim that they never belonged to him.

Child pornography is any deception of an individual or minor that appears as a juvenile and is engaged in a sexual act. In most circumstances, videos, computer-generated or videos are used. An altering image that has a minor is also considered as child pornography. One exemption in this situation is the artistic deception or renderings that have severe artistic, literary, scientific and political values. When one is arrested with a crime that is related to child pornography, the person must be aware that they are in possession (Binder 345). This means that the level of intent and knowledge of the defendant is required. However, when one is accidentally found with child pornography photos, it cannot make them be arrested, but if the investigations conducted to show that they were accessed through the website or internet, then the intent is obvious. In Jimmies case upon being questioned concerning the possession of pornographic photos he claimed that he has never seen such things. He added that he has never touched any of the images.

In this case, the law states that a person can only be arrested in possession of child pornography materials if he agrees that he or she was in possession. Jimmy denied that he never touched the photos. However, the law also states that when investigation re-conducted and the results show that they were downloaded from illegal sites, then the victim is eligible for arrest. One reason behind this arrest is that either the person might have seduced children or he had the intentions of conducting the act (Binder 375). Perhaps one way, such an individual can defend themselves is when they claim that he was not aware when downloading the images or video. Since adult pornography’s consider to be legal, people who download may accidentally access child pornography similar to how they are downloading the adult material.

Conclusion

Jimmy’s case began when he was walking publicly naked while masturbating. According to law, such acts are considered unless it’s a demonstration or a dramatic demonstration. But Jimmy was doing none of the above. When questioned, he claimed that he had a medical condition. Jimmy was also found in possession of child pornography on his personal computer, but when asked he claimed that he had no idea that they existed.

To conclude, in this case, Jimmy should be put in jail because he was found walking in the playground naked. He also masturbated in front of people. When this matter is connected to the child pornography he had, it shows that he had intentions of physically molesting a child. Even though he is giving excuses, he should be put in jail.

Works Cited

Binder, Guyora. “Justification and Excuse.” Criminal Law, Jan. 2016, pp. 333–398., doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195321203.003.0009.

Mitchell, David B. “Contemporary Police Practices in Domestic Violence Cases: Arresting the Abuser: Is It Enough?” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), vol. 83, no. 1, 1992, pp. 241–267., doi:10.2307/1143832.

Hayes, Christine. “Whats Divine about Divine Law?” Princeton University Press, 2017, pp. 101–220., doi:10.23943/princeton/9780691165196.001.0001.