PEEPERS: CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE
At the time of the offense that resulted in his first peeping conviction, the average (median) peeper was 23.8 years old. Peeping is chiefly a young man’s avocation, calling for some agility and fleetness of foot. A middle-aged man may have strong voyeuristic desires, but is less inclined to scale fences or run foot races with irate husbands and neighbors. About two thirds of the offenses were committed by men who had never married, one quarter were by married men, and the remainder were by men who were separated, divorced, or widowed. The proportion of currently married men need not give rise to the question, “Why didn’t they look at their wives if they wanted to see a naked woman?” since we have pointed out that the peepers generally avoid spying upon females who are available as sexual partners. Nearly 95 per cent of the women were strangers, 1 to 2 per cent were acquaintances, and 4 per cent were friends. Not one was a relative. Moreover, such a question ignores the universal attraction (to males) of the “new or different” woman. Even a burlesque stagehand, a carnival man, or a gynecologist will stop or slacken his pace at least momentarily to look at a pretty girl undressing before her window.
Forty-six per cent of the peeping offenses were first sex offenses, 22 per cent were second, 15 third, 8 fourth, and 9 fifth or more. These figures undoubtedly would have shown a larger number of multiple convictions had it not been for the youthfulness of the peepers as a whole.
Their age may explain in part the low incidence of neurosis and psychosis prior to the offense (1 per cent, the smallest percentage on record). Unless one assumes that peeping is ipso facto evidence of some degree of psychopathology, the peepers are our mentally healthiest group. On the other hand, the awareness of the prison and court psychologists and psychiatrists of the common urge to peep may have prevented them from including in their records any comments or terms which would label these peepers as neurotic. However, this explanation does not account for the absence of peepers with records of previous treatment or incarceration in mental institutions.
Alcohol and drugs played little or no role in the offense behavior. We have no evidence of drug use, and only 16 per cent of the peepers were drunk (and an additional 10 per cent mildly intoxicated) at the time.
There were no copartners in the offenses. Adolescents may peep in groups, but, as we have pointed out, the adult peeper is almost always alone.
Despite the fact that peeping, more than any other sex offense, is intrinsically dependent upon chance, only 7 per cent of the offenses were wholly opportunistic and 89 per cent were clearly premeditated. Basically the convicted peeper is out looking for opportunities, not waiting for them. He does not patrol the sidewalk patiently waiting to see a girl with her window shade up; he leaves the public paths, trespasses on private property, and peers into windows.
Peepers are almost always on the outside looking in. Only 6 per cent of the offenses were committed by men who entered or were already within buildings in order to gratify their voyeurism. We feel that if a man goes into a residence to peep, the probability is great that he is
more of an aggressor than a peeper or that he is one of the confused persons who mix theft with peeping. One hesitates to call them burglar-peepers since their skills fall so far short of even semiprofessional status.
Considering only the three quarters of the offenses for which we have information about the degree of risk involved, it appears that the peepers were quite cautious. We judged that only 6 per cent behaved so as to make apprehension probable. Nine out of ten risked possible, but not probable, arrest, and a few (4 per cent) were so careful that apprehension was most unlikely. Despite this the peepers are commonly caught because they are so often “going against the law of averages.” Although arrest in any one peeping foray is unlikely, arrest becomes progressively more certain if a man peeps frequently enough.
The nemesis of the peeper is, ironically, the unforeseen onlooker— the neighbor, the passer-by, the accidental witness. In 44 per cent of the offenses the onlooker reported the matter. The girl or woman herself accounted for 13 per cent of the arrests, and her friends and relatives for the same amount. The police, usually alerted by previous complaints, brought 30 per cent of the cases to an end. However, all these percentages are based upon only half of our sample of offenses; for the other half the reporting person or discoverer was unknown.
Nearly two thirds of the offenses were fully admitted to the authorities, and slightly over two thirds were admitted to us. One quarter to one fifth of the men denied their behavior, and between 5 and 7 per cent claimed to have been too drunk or otherwise non compos mentis to recall it. The substantial proportion of denials of a common and excusable behavior seems odd until one recalls how easy it is to deny peeping: mistaking one house for another, looking for a friend, being wrongly accused while taking a nocturnal stroll—all these and still other alibis are easy in offenses where the object can seldom make a positive identification and where the alibi may be genuine.
The final pleas, however, are not too different from those of various other offenders: 78 per cent guilty, 17 per cent not guilty, and 5 per cent no plea.
*228\161\2*
