Senate Judiciary advances amendment to increase penalties for nonconsensual voyeurism involving minors

The Senate Judiciary committee on Wednesday reviewed and voted to report an amendment that would increase criminal penalties when nonconsensual voyeurism or distribution of sexual images involves a minor.

Committee counsel outlined the proposed language and said it was drafted with input from the attorney general’s office to address an evidentiary gap: chapter 64 of title 13 applies in some cases only to victims age 16 and younger, leaving 16– and 17‑year‑olds vulnerable to statutes with lower penalties. The counsel said the amendment would replace the bill’s penalty subsection so that offenses involving victims under 18 carry higher terms than otherwise provided.

"I really appreciate the committee's recognition of [the] unique impact of voyeurism on youth," said Charlene Lesserman, who identified herself as a policy director at a Vermont domestic‑violence organization and offered support for the amendment’s structure.

Under the numeric examples discussed on the record, committee staff described a baseline for adults of a two‑year term for a first offense and three years for a second offense; the amendment’s example raised a first‑offense term to three years with a financial penalty (an example figure of $5,000 was discussed) and a second or subsequent term to five years when the victim is under 18. Members also discussed treating dissemination — the sharing or posting of illicit images — as a more serious offense (the amendment as debated applied a higher penalty for dissemination, with five years discussed as an example).

Members emphasized the difference between cases in which an image was consensually produced and later shared without consent (typically addressed under the bill’s disclosure or dissemination provisions, described as misdemeanors in some circumstances) and cases of voyeurism in which the image was taken without the subject’s knowledge, which the committee treated as the more serious crime.

Committee members raised practical questions about prosecution and juvenile defendants: whether a juvenile defendant would be processed in juvenile court or adult court and how liability attaches when images are forwarded multiple times. Counsel said charging discretion rests with prosecutors and noted civil remedies may remain available even when criminal evidence is weak.

After discussion, the chair took a straw poll and a motion to report the bill as amended was offered and seconded. The committee recorded the vote and reported the measure out by a 5–0–0 vote.

The committee did not agree on final numeric statutory language on the record; members asked staff to circulate the edited amendment language and a short summary for committee files before final drafting. The committee also noted overlaps with existing sextortion and extortion provisions and said staff should confirm how the amendments interact with chapter 64 offenses and with juvenile charging rules.

The committee moved on to the next agenda item following the unanimous report out.