ID: Idaho Senate panel introduces bill to broaden sex crime laws


An Idaho Senate committee has introduced two bills that would broaden the definition of some sex crimes to include crimes committed with the intent of degrading or humiliating someone.

Idaho Deputy Attorney General Paul Panther told the Senate Judiciary and Rules committee on Monday that both the state’s current statute on sexual battery and the statue on forcible penetration with a foreign object define the crimes as having been done with the intent of sexual gratification or arousal. But Panther said those statutes currently don’t cover situations like severe hazing, when someone — such as on a high school sports team — is sexually battered during a bullying incident.

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

If you want to talk about “broad,” California has a statute under 290 that permits a judge to order registration if a crime was committed “as a result of sexual compulsion or for purposes of sexual gratification.” So even if a sex crime isn’t one of the 50 plus crimes specifically listed under the main 290 statute, a judge can use 290.006 to order registration nonetheless. Seems pretty ‘broad’ to me, considering the first factor relies on *thought*, whilst the other relies on *feeling*.

More idiocy. Betting the primary unstated motivation behind these proposals is to increase the number of registrants.

If attempts to degrade and humiliate become regsterable offenses, then it should apply to all lawyers that have ever cross examined someone in court.

@ Assault is still an assault regardless of how stupid it is to pass more laws

Even a sexual assault on one of my own children – which has happened, by the way – does not change my opinion that the registry is absolutely worthless as a preventive measure and accordingly, do not believe registration should be part of punishment for hazing. Nor does it change my opinion that the protection of children is a parental one, not a government one.

I think the reliance on the nuclear family(parents/children) to raise kids is in part why we have a registry. The idea that anyone out of that special unit is a danger is the root basis for the registry. Now with both parents struggling to make ends meet, there is not time to be responsible to your child, in all that should entail, so the task is delegated to institutions, government or private, which people assume are trustworthy. You have registries that do or rather don’t do what the extended family used to do, protect, encourage and foster the child. That is still necessary, only in a fantasy world do children raise themselves.

No surprise. There is only what, 3 or 4 Democrats on the Idaho legislature?