Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Judiciary committee backs Senate amendment adding tougher voyeurism penalty for victims under 18 after deliberation
Summary
On April 17 the House Judiciary Committee reviewed a Senate amendment to H626 that raises penalties for non‑consensual recording (voyeurism) when the victim is under 18. Members heard testimony from Legislative Council, the Vermont Network and the Defender General and voted to recommend concurrence while flagging juvenile‑court and charging concerns.
The House Judiciary Committee on April 17 recommended concurrence with a Senate amendment to H626 that creates an enhanced penalty for voyeurism when the victim is under 18.
Michelle Charles of the Office of Legislative Council told the committee the Senate amendment adds a separate penalty tier for the voyeurism offense: voyeurism against adults remains a two‑year misdemeanor, but when the victim is under 18 the amendment makes first offenses a three‑year felony and repeat offenses a five‑year felony. Charles said the change mirrors the House’s two‑tier approach to sextortion and applies to viewing/recording conduct; dissemination of sexually explicit material remains governed by a separate statute.
Kim McManus of the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs said the department had no formal position for or against the amendment but urged the committee to consider how juvenile‑court mechanics would apply when both the alleged offender and victim are minors. McManus noted that such matters can be handled under delinquency statutes and that prosecutors must weigh family‑division procedures and treatment options when youth are involved.
The committee also reviewed written testimony from the Vermont Network, which supported the Senate amendment as a policy choice that recognizes the unique harms image‑based abuse imposes on youth.
Defender General Matt Valerio joined by Zoom and said his principal concern is the prospect of first‑offense felonies for people under 18. Valerio said youthful‑offender statutes and diversion options can mitigate effects, but making a first incident a felony could be disproportionate in some peer‑to‑peer cases and might change charging and disposition practices. Members discussed possible close‑in‑age exceptions (for example, a 36‑month window used in other sexual statutes), prosecutorial discretion, and whether to create explicit misdemeanor alternatives or handle the issue in a committee of conference with the Senate.
After discussion the committee took a motion to recommend concurrence with the Senate’s proposed amendment to H626 (page 626). The motion was seconded and carried by hand/voice vote; the transcript does not record an individual roll call or tally. Members said they wanted time to reflect over the weekend and signaled willingness to revisit technical fixes later.
The amendment’s language, as explained to the committee, does not alter the separate dissemination offense (which carries its own penalty structure) and focuses exclusively on non‑consensual viewing or recording when the victim is under 18. The committee’s action advances the bill toward the floor while leaving open the possibility of subsequent amendments or a committee of conference to address charging concerns for minor‑to‑minor incidents.
What’s next: The House will consider H626 on the floor Tuesday; committee members indicated they would confer informally before that session if needed.
