Source: nbcchicago.com 10/22/24
When John heard the news on a recent Friday, it hit him hard: Elliott ____, a former Chicago public schoolteacher and John’s former colleague, had been arrested and charged with three counts of child exploitation, after allegedly exposing himself to three girls – ages 10, 9, and 7.
Eight years ago, John – who does not want to be identified by his real name – was one of more than two dozen victims recorded by Elliott after he hid a motion-activated camera in an employee bathroom at Ogden Elementary School on Chicago’s Near North Side, according to a Chicago Police Department incident report.
Police said the camera was pointed at the toilet, and – over several days – caught several employees and a disabled student using the bathroom.
“I felt violated,” John said. “I know my colleagues felt violated. It was extremely disturbing for many of us, and very hard to get over. I personally had to seek therapy for it and had a very difficult time using the public bathrooms – and I would hyperventilate even thinking about it.”
Elliott was eventually convicted of 26 counts of unauthorized videorecording. A single count of child pornography – involving the child who was videotaped — was dismissed because the parents reportedly did not want their child to have to testify in court. And because it was, Elliott was not made to register as a sex offender, because – while child pornography is considered a sex offense — unauthorized videorecording is not.
“I did not feel like what it was being labelled as, was ‘illegal videotaping,’” John said. “It’s a sexual act. You don’t have to touch someone for a sexual act. You are doing something sexually – you are videotaping…. and by watching it, he [Elliott ] gets some kind of sexual pleasure out of that.”
As it turns out, Illinois law also does not consider several crimes, involving voyeurism, to be sex crimes. For example, when Elliott was arrested at Ogden School in 2016, NBC 5 Investigates found he’d been convicted of a “Peeping Tom” offense in his hometown of Normal when he was 18 years old and caught spying on two sisters in his neighborhood. But a “Peeping Tom” conviction does not require someone to register as a sex offender.
I want to respond to the authors of this article because it’s a biggie source (NBC Chicago) but I am struggling to articulate my thoughts and need some help (@Dustin, TS, Notorious?). I don’t want to argue about this man’s crimes or harms he caused, I want to ask how being on the registry would have prevented his recent crimes. What data, research, evidence do they have to show the efficacy of the registry? This article just shows how some are able to escape it and implies the registry is this big savior, if only we could get more people on it. Please share your wise thoughts so I can put something intelligent together.
Looks like peeping toms are next to join our cause in Illinois. Don’t these fools know that the more people they add to the registry, the more we’ll see heads exploding with Karen’s trying to keep up with the dots.
From the article:
“Our judicial system already said that he needed … counseling. Why was he able to walk around? Why are other people able to walk around in his similar situation?”
Apparently, none of us should be able to just “walk around…”. What do they think we should be doing? Crawling? Or maybe everyone charged with a sexually related offense should just be locked up permanently?
Hmmm… If you’re a peeper, you no registers….
If you allow yourself to be peep’d on… you registers….
What logic…. o.O
(This is, of course, aside from the fact that registries serve little to no meaningful, fruitful purpose; other than to shame people who are despised and hated; sometimes for petty reasons, even.)
“I did not feel like what it was being labelled as, was ‘illegal videotaping,’” John said. “It’s a sexual act. You don’t have to touch someone for a sexual act.”
I suppose watching a sex scene in the latest Netflix movie is a sexual act too, even though you’re not touching anyone. I mean, how far do you want to take that argument John? I understand there should be criminal penalties for peeking in on someone in the bathroom, but being uptight about the government not labeling it a sex act is pretty disingenuous