<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alan K:
Try this one out:
In 1992, the Massachusetts Legislature enacted a statute to punish stalking.
It was defined or described as willfully, maliciously, and repeadedly following or harassing another person or making a threat with intent to place that person in imminent fear o(f) death or serious bodily injury.(snip)
The word "harass" is defined in the statute as "a knowing and wi(ll)ful pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person which seriously alarms or annoys the person. Said conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person.
The statute was Mass. General Laws Chapter 265, section 43.(snip)
Do you find the 1992 Statute objectionable in any way, and if so, why?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
ME! me, me, ME! Oh... oh... oh... pick Meeeeee!
I have a number of problems with the statute. But I'll chose just one (which is pervasive in both the statute and the definition of "harassment").
It hinges directly on "the intent"
or "knowing and willful conduct"
of the perp! Soooo, the perp just denys that was the "intent" (or that she/he "knowingly and willfully" acted in that manner) and there's technically no case.