It's not often that I find myself siding with the prosecution, so add this one to the record books.
I was completely perplexed by the decision of a judge in California in which he dismissed indecent exposure charges against a 40 year old woman who was alleged to have intentionally exposed herself to a 14 year old boy. As reported in this article, the judge dismissed the charges because:
(T)he law only mentions someone who "exposes his person..."It's gender specific," Armstrong said.
That's an absolutely ridiculous determination--especially since, like New York, California statutes have a provision that states that all references to the masculine gender are intended to apply to both genders:
Prosecutor Alison N. Norton said the decision to throw out the case will be appealed because another section of state law says that "words used in the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter."
I can't even imagine this judge's thought process in this matter--or perhaps I'd prefer not to. It's most likely based in a sexist ideology that I like to think was extinguished long ago--specifically that young boys don't need to be protected from female sexual predators and that exposure of this sort is something most boys only dream about. It's a ridiculous and archaic concept and I can only hope that the judge's erroneous decision will be quickly reversed on appeal.