Indonesia’s controversial and ambiguously worded anti-pornography law has been used to unjustly charge people who arguably didn’t deserve it, such as those performing “pornographic acts” in private settings, but here is an instance in which the technicalities of the law seem to have allowed one man to go unpunished for a heinous crime he admitted to committing.
Recently, the police in Jakarta’s neighboring city of Serang arrested a 40-year-old man, identified by his initial A, for allegedly setting up a hidden camera in the bathroom of a women’s-only boarding house that he owns. Fifteen of his tenants lodged an official police complaint against him, saying that they found evidence that the camera was wired to a computer in A’s shop next door. A admitted to the accusations, saying that he was only doing it “for fun”.
But police said that none of that evidence was sufficient to launch a legal case against A, who was released yesterday.
“So it’s like this: we have coordinated intensely with investigators, with prosecutors, and they have concluded that there is not a single piece of evidence that proves this was a criminal act,” said Serang Police Komarudin, as quoted by Detik yesterday.
The police found that A did not record footage of his tenants using the bathroom, and that he watched them privately as they happened. As such, there is no “pornographic content” that can be used as proof in this case.
“To be a violation of the anti-pornography law, there must be content. To be a violation of the Information and Electronics Act (UU ITE), the footage must be spread or shown to the public. That’s the language of the law,” Komarudin said.
“If there is no recording, it’s difficult to determine who the victims are.”
The police and prosecutors failing to find any criminal elements in A’s actions is simply outrageous. Even if this case might not qualify as a violation the anti-pornography law, it could be easily argued that A’s act constituted as lewd behavior, which is a violation of public decency under Article 281 of Indonesia’s Criminal Code (KUHP).
In fact, there was a case in 2010 in which prosecutors demanded one year imprisonment for a man who was caught peeping at a woman in a shower, without the aid of a camera. If law enforcers had even an ounce of common sense, they should see that A’s actions are similar, if not exactly the same, as that case. Technically speaking, A also peeped directly at his tenants in the bathroom, regardless of whether he recorded videos or not.
If A remains unpunished, it would set a dangerous precedent potentially allowing voyeurs everywhere to set up hidden cameras in bathrooms and using the “I didn’t record them” defense if caught.
