House amends and advances bill creating sextortion crime, expanding remedies for victims of nonconsensual explicit images

The Vermont House adopted committee amendments and ordered third reading for House Bill 626 after extended debate about definitions, penalties and statutes of limitation for crimes involving nonconsensual explicit images.

The member for Pittsburgh (speaking for the Judiciary Committee) said H626 "strengthens our state's criminal and civil responses to image based abuse," describing three principal reforms: (1) a clearer separation in the voyeurism statute to allow different statutes of limitation depending on the type of voyeurism; (2) a private right of action and expanded civil remedies allowing recovery for trauma‑related disorders such as PTSD; and (3) creation of a distinct sextortion offense. The member for Williston outlined specific sections, saying "Section 3 establishes the crime of sextortion" and described penalties the bill proposes: a three‑year felony when the victim is an adult, a 10‑year felony when the victim is under 18, and a 15‑year felony if serious bodily injury or death results.

Committee members told colleagues that the bill permits retroactive application of the statute of limitations in limited circumstances and extends the statute of limitations for photographing/filming voyeurism, disclosure of explicit images without consent, and sextortion to 40 years after the commission of the crime. The presenting members said the committee considered testimony from prosecutors, defense counsel, victim advocates, the Vermont Judiciary and other stakeholders and voted 10‑0‑1 to report the bill favorably.

Several members raised detailed legal questions. The member from Northfield asked whether a changing room would be a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and questioned apparent overlaps between sections addressing taking images, disclosure and reproduction; after a short recess the committee representatives clarified that the bill intentionally separates voyeurism statutes to allow tailored statutes of limitation and that "disclose" is used in two places because the conduct and required intent differ across sections. The committee also explained that the existing rule begins the limitations period at the commission of the crime rather than at discovery, and the bill’s changes do not make discovery the triggering event.

Supporters argued the changes respond to the practical reality that images can be created and remain undiscovered for long periods and that the harms can be lifelong; one committee presenter recounted two Vermont teenagers who were recorded without consent and a separate out‑of‑state sextortion case that the presenter said led to a young person's suicide to underline the committee’s rationale for extended limitations and stronger remedies. The House adopted the committee amendment and ordered the bill for third reading; several members said they planned to offer additional amendments before that final vote.