Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Naughty but nice

'Naked pumpkin' runners don't deserve sex-offender status

Rocky Mountain News

Published November 11, 2008 at 7:36 p.m.
Updated November 11, 2008 at 11:56 p.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

You would have thought that, after letting 60 birthday-suited cyclists pedal through the streets of Boulder in June, that city's police chief would have turned the other cheek when it came to the 10th annual Naked Pumpkin Run.

But whereas none of the daytime World Naked Bike Ride participants (who protested America's dependence on foreign oil) were charged with a crime - "I think the police department tries to reflect the values of our community. . . . I think our community values are pretty tolerant of civil disobedience," Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner told The Daily Camera after the mass spokes streak - the pumpkin heads could face serious punishment that doesn't fit the prank.

As partygoers lined the Pearl Street Mall close to 11 p.m. on All Hallow's Eve, more than 100 nude runners donned pumpkins on their craniums for a traditional sprint in the buff. This time, though, a dozen of the streakers were cited for indecent exposure - a Class 1 misdemeanor that carries the penalty of having to register as a sex offender.

This would be an unusually harsh punishment for a group of revelers who included research scientists and University of Colorado students. Colorado's criminal code defines indecent exposure as knowingly flashing one's genitals in a circumstance "likely to cause affront or alarm" to the viewer. Since the late-night Pearl Street crowd was there to view the run, it's likely there was much more amusement than alarm.

If the pumpkin runners had been charged with public indecency, they would not face the stigma of being on a sex offender registry. But ironically, the criteria for public indecency - having sex or masturbating in public are among them - may be even less appropriate than indecent exposure for the nonsexual streaking that haunted Boulder.

The saga of the naked pumpkin streakers has revealed much more than sprinters' derrieres; it has also revealed the need for a legal exemption. A college prankster clearly should not be tarred with the same sex-offender status as a pervert flashing his private parts at vulnerable victims.

"The Colorado General Assembly and the (Sex Offender Management Board) conclude that sex offenders are dangerous because of the harm they cause to victims and their risk to re-offend," states Colorado's Convicted Sex Offender Site. "The SOMB believes that community safety is paramount and comes before the needs of the offender. The primary goal of sex offender management is to prevent the offender from victimizing any other person."

Did the streakers have victims or cause harm? Is community safety compromised by their antics, other than by the runners' compromised vision from peering out of a jack o'lantern?

Obviously the possible punishment does not fit the crime, and would water down a list of dangerous sexual offenders by including harmless jokers.

The nude running pack on Halloween night has grown over the years, and we understand if Boulder would rather not see it continue to expand - perhaps reaching thousands at some point. It's entirely reasonable for the city to draw the line and try to deter or dissuade the trouser-droppers. But there must be options to citing them with an offense that dumps them in with sex offenders, such as closing down the street party or finding some other charge to file against them.

But to do that, Boulder would first have to lay down reasonable ground rules, and then apply them consistently - bare-butted bicyclists and pumpkin-headed streakers alike.

Comments

  • November 11, 2008

    8:38 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    The_Punnisher writes:

    The BOULDER law allows the display provided that people are not sexually aroused.

    That was the conclusion of some students who actually had to do research on this issue for a school project....

    That chief couldn't pour sand out of a boot with the directions printed on the heel...

  • November 11, 2008

    11:09 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    HolierThanThou writes:

    Boneheads in the legislature create stupid laws that need to be repealed or amended. Too bad we don't have a law to promptly jail legislators who want to write a new law as a knee jerk response to some big upset simply to show off how concerned they are.

    After all, what exactly is a sex offender? Are we talking about rapists, child molesters, or some putz with a bad pickup line? The former two deserve prison but for the latter, a smack on the chops will do.

    Nakedness by itself isn't even a sexual act. Unless you're a devout Mormon or a half-frozen homeless gutter drunk, you're likely to get naked every day.

  • November 11, 2008

    11:30 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ifyem writes:

    "Surely you aren't suggesting that because these are spoiled children at an elite primarily white University that they should get special treatment and let off."

    And your assuming they are spoiled because they go to a university?? What a shallow-a** remark!! Are you jealous because you didn't go to college?? Didn't work hard enough?? Just another example of the narrow-mindedness of some of the people on this site..

  • November 12, 2008

    6:33 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    VVVV writes:

    It's politically correct to charge them with the indecent exposure misdemeanor, and if they didn't want to be registered sex offenders, maybe they should have considered that before they flouted the law. Whether or not children or innocents are present, it is illegal to smoke indoors in Boulder. If you don't like the strict laws you have imposed on yourself, maybe you should reconsider all of the others you have victimized for the sake of the innocent bystanders. Maybe there was a Mormon or Menonite walking down the street that night, who's religion prohibits them viewing nude people. But they don't matter, right? It's only a crime if the victim is you, and the perpetrator is someone you don't like.

    Throw the book at them, and let them feel the pitiful result of the nanny state they have created with their government.

  • November 12, 2008

    8:33 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Art writes:

    We must learn the new rules; riding a bike nude is OK since it is in protest of high oil prices, but running nude is not Ok since it is only for fun. We must learn that we cannot do things just for fun, we must only do things that have a politically correct motive. This seems to be what Boulder is telling us. Let's all lighten up and learn to enjoy living a little more. If someone is offende by this then they should not look. Since when is it so bad to offend someone? Grow up and enjoy life and if you are offended then just get over it. You'll live a lot longer that way and have more fun while you're at it too.

  • November 12, 2008

    8:38 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    byteme writes:

    I think it is ridiculous to charge these people, but let's hope whatever happens is consistently applied throughout Boulder. Recall Rep. Madden's son who streaked at a football game. In my mind that is far more offensive than Halloween revelers - there are families with kids at the football game, not likely the same audience late at night on Pearl Street mall. Will he be charged with a class 1 misdemeanor or will he get off thanks to his mom's position?

  • November 12, 2008

    9:22 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    JCRiggle writes:

    No no, the cops got it all wrong. We were protesting sweatshop labor. We were making a statement by shedding all our sinful clothes.

  • November 12, 2008

    10:23 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    VVVV writes:

    Regardless of motive, I'd rather walk through clouds of smoke everywhere than see Wee Willy Winkle running through the town. At least the smoke can be washed away.

  • November 12, 2008

    10:23 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    shevy61 writes:

    Across the country, there are hundreds of thousands of people who have been forced to register as sex offenders for relatively minor crimes. Add these 12 to the long list of people who have been victimized by over-zealous politicians out to prove that they're "tough on crime", and a media that fans the flames by promoting fear and ignorance. The sex offender registry was originally intended as a private database for law enforcement use only, to list truly dangerous predators. Thanks to the politics of fear and hatred, it is now open to public inspection, and lists people who ran down the street with only a freakin' pumpkin on their head. And your tax dollars pay for all of it. Way to go!

    Then again, the Supreme Court ruled that the registry was not a punishment. Try telling that to any of these 12 people who were arrested, or any of the other 650,000 people already listed nationwide, when they can't get a job, are forced from their homes due to residency restrictions, are attacked by "do-gooder" vigilantes who appoint themselves judge and jury, and are subject to public ridicule. These 12 are just a dozen more who have made youthful or minor mistakes, but will be required to pay for them for the rest of their lives.

  • November 12, 2008

    10:59 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    fallenone writes:

    http://www.oncefallen.com/youmightber...

    Here are a few more cases where people found themselves of sex offender registries for relatively petty behavior. Its a far cry from the violent rapists and child molesters the registries were designed for.

  • November 12, 2008

    12:03 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Zwoman writes:

    Don't let fallenone.com up there fool you. He is a tier III sex offender in Ohio. Derek Logue was convicted of sexual contact with an 11 year old girl. But he doesn't think he should be on the SOR.

    When they plea bargin they will likely get a slap on the wrist. See the original sentence is something that could get you listed on the SOR but usually won't since most people plea bargin. If these nimwits don't plea bargin....well, they probably won't get very far in life anyway ;-)

  • November 12, 2008

    12:25 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Cowboy63 writes:

    Time has come for these drunken college clowns to grow up.

    Just throw a bucket of oil on the street at the next Pumpkin Run - a little road rash will go a long way in their maturing process.

  • November 12, 2008

    12:53 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    gs writes:

    Freda,
    Wow, that Montbello comment created quite an image for me! Wow.

  • November 12, 2008

    2:54 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    enough321 writes:

    "Colorado's criminal code defines indecent exposure as knowingly flashing one's genitals in a circumstance "likely to cause affront or alarm" to the viewer. Since the late-night Pearl Street crowd was there to view the run, it's likely there was much more amusement than alarm."

    First of all, there was no "flashing" of genitals. They were naked and anyone who saw them shirtless just didn't have to look down. Also, a witness will need to say they were affronted or alarmed by it. The police don't count as witnesses, because they were there for the specific purpose of seeing the exposure, so they can't claim alarm or affrontery.

    This is a huge waste of taxpayer money. The police involved should be reprimanded.

  • November 13, 2008

    1:44 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    TimP writes:

    You DO NOT NEED TO BE SEXUALY ARROSED to be charged as a sex offender. In many states peeing in public will get you charged. And what these runners did is a crime, they exposed themselfs to others. It is without anyqustion a crime that they should be charged with and if convicted they should be added to the Sex Offender Registry. The SOR is so full of people who did a lot less then they did, why not add them so we as a public will have no idea who to watch out for. The SOR is being used by those in office to get the public thinking they are doing something to protect us. IF those in office realy wanted to protect us they would REQUIRE ALL KNOWN SEX OFFENDERS TO PAY FOR TESTING THAT IS AVALIABLE THAT SHOWS HOW MUCH OF A DANGER THEY ARE TO RE-OFFEND. And then using that information post only those who are the highest risk on a public sex offender registry. Stop mudding up the SOR with people that are no risk. But if you are going to keep mudding it up then these runners should be added also!

  • November 13, 2008

    1:51 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    TimP writes:

    Zwoman writes:
    "Don't let fallenone.com up there fool you. He is a tier III sex offender in Ohio. Derek Logue was convicted of sexual contact with an 11 year old girl. But he doesn't think he should be on the SOR."

    Come on just because you do not agree with what he said in his post you have to label him as a Sex Offender! Now even if he is, when did it become against the law for him to voice his thinking. Oh maybe I missed that one as Hitler took over? I would suggest you worry about what you post and the reactions to it and not try to out anyone.

  • November 13, 2008

    4:37 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    P_Denver writes:

    They knew the law. They broke the law. They should be punished according to the law.

    If they don't like the law, they should lobby to get it changed. Until then, they are lawbreakers and should face the consequences.

    Done.

  • November 14, 2008

    5:47 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    roger44 writes:

    The conclusion of the students don't count unless they are judges. These people should not be treated any differently than a flasher on the street corner. Always wondered why some students who come from out of state, have been good kids all their life, get stupid when they get to Boulder.

  • November 14, 2008

    3:57 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    PumpkinRunner writes:

    I was one of the participants in the 10th Annual Naked Pumpkin Run. Based on the comments here, it appears to me that the nature of this event is widely misunderstood, so I thought I’d provide some first-hand perspective. The participants in the run were a wide cross-section of society: there was quite a range of ages, occupations, backgrounds, etc. To stereotype runners as “yuppies” or “spoiled rich kids,” or “nitwit students” is absolutely incorrect. It’s also incorrect to say that the event was a “prank:” everyone runs for their own reasons, but most of the participants I spoke to said they feel that the human body should not be regarded as something shameful and wanted to promote body-positive values. Some also said that they felt that our society has become too repressive when it comes to nudity, and wanted to reverse that trend. Overall, this was to be a jubilant, body-positive holiday celebration, and the vast majority of the crowd on Pearl St. was aware of it and many were there specifically to see it. “A community arts project,” as the event website called it.

    In the course of this event, the law may have been broken, but the question is, which law? The ticketed runners are being charged with indecent exposure, which is defined as follows: “A person commits indecent exposure if he knowingly exposes his genitals to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person” (Colorado criminal law, section 18-7-302). Since the intent of the Naked Pumpkin Run is not to affront or alarm, I feel strongly that this charge is not applicable to this event. The police had several alternatives with which to cite the runners, such as disorderly conduct, but they chose one that was grossly disproportionate.

    Finally, if you feel that that the charges are excessive and disproportionate, please visit this Facebook support group to learn what you can do: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid...

  • November 15, 2008

    2:02 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    PumpkinRunner writes:

    I did not say that the law didn't apply, I said that, in my opinion, the indecent exposure charge didn't apply because the event wasn't sexual in nature and wasn't conducted with the intent to shock and offend. The thousand people who watched this event on Pearl St. can testify to that. There are lots of videos and photos of this event, and none show children present, so that argument is not valid. And I'm not sure where the "hate crime" aspect comes in -- this is meant to be a positive, life-affirming event. It was also not about trying to force or beliefs and values on other people -- most of the people on Pearl St. were aware of the event and were there specifically to see it, and those that weren't probably couldn't see anything anyway because the crowd of onlookers blocked their view of the runners. May I suggest at least viewing a video of the event before making a judgement? Here's a good one: http://blip.tv/file/1422912?filename=...

  • November 17, 2008

    2:45 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mtnsjohn writes:

    PumpkinRunner:

    1. Knowingly remove all clothes to expose genitals
    2. Wear a pumpkin hat
    3. Knowingly run in public
    4. Is it likely some unaware soul might be affronted or alarmed by the sight of 100 nude pumpkin-headed runners?? (Intent is not required - no one has to be actually affronted or alarmed).
    5. Receive citation

    That State statute has been on the books for many many years, and I suppose part of the attraction is not only the thrill of flaunting ones' unit but(t) also the law.

    You fought the law and the law won.

  • November 17, 2008

    9:11 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    PumpkinRunner writes:

    Mtnsjohn:

    1. Not all runners were fully nude.
    2. Why not, it's a celebration, after all!
    3. "In public" is a very broad statement, and completely ignores the context in which this event took place (see #4).
    4. Not likely. Remember, this is Pearl Street at 11 PM, with a huge crowd buzzing with anticipation waiting to see this event.
    5. In the process of citing runners, the police kept a bunch of naked people detained in full view of the public for 10-15 minutes, in the process exposing the public to far more nudity.

    "That State statute has been on the books for many many years, and I suppose part of the attraction is not only the thrill of flaunting ones' unit but(t) also the law."

    For me, and, I believe, for the majority of other participants, this event was not about the cheap thrill of flaunting the law.

  • November 17, 2008

    11:24 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    PumpkinRunner writes:

    Jimminy:

    Since you seem to like definitions, I've got one for you:

    gloat: to observe or think about something with triumphant and often malicious satisfaction, gratification, or delight (Merriam-Webster Online)

    Some upstanding citizens got charged with a heinous crime, and you're gloating over it. It's just... not nice.