PDA

View Full Version : Should kids get in legal trouble for sexting?



garhkal
04-11-2014, 09:36 PM
Yesterday there was a news story (old as it was) about yet another state going after kids for sexting/having nude pictures of themselves on their phones.

Critics of it, say why punish the kids cause of a law that was designed to protect kids against pedophiles. But to me the issue is Why should they not be punished? Until and unless the law is amended, all who violate it should be hit.

What say you all?

http://jezebel.com/teen-girl-busted-for-child-porn-after-tweeting-naked-se-1518400739

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/08/teen-charged-with-distributing-underage-explicit-photos-for-tweeting-nude-selfies/

Measure Man
04-11-2014, 10:42 PM
Yesterday there was a news story (old as it was) about yet another state going after kids for sexting/having nude pictures of themselves on their phones.

Critics of it, say why punish the kids cause of a law that was designed to protect kids against pedophiles. But to me the issue is Why should they not be punished? Until and unless the law is amended, all who violate it should be hit.

What say you all?

http://jezebel.com/teen-girl-busted-for-child-porn-after-tweeting-naked-se-1518400739

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/08/teen-charged-with-distributing-underage-explicit-photos-for-tweeting-nude-selfies/

....because if this is a crime, they are, in theory, punishing the victim.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-11-2014, 11:38 PM
Yesterday there was a news story (old as it was) about yet another state going after kids for sexting/having nude pictures of themselves on their phones.

Critics of it, say why punish the kids cause of a law that was designed to protect kids against pedophiles. But to me the issue is Why should they not be punished? Until and unless the law is amended, all who violate it should be hit.

What say you all?

http://jezebel.com/teen-girl-busted-for-child-porn-after-tweeting-naked-se-1518400739

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/08/teen-charged-with-distributing-underage-explicit-photos-for-tweeting-nude-selfies/

Both those websites you linked misquoted the the original news source and statements from the police department.

http://wavy.com/2014/02/05/teen-accused-of-tweeting-nude-selfies/

The teen’s phone was confiscated for evidence. James City County Police investigated the case and referred it to the juvenile intake office for informal handling. The teen is not facing charges at this time, according to Major Stephen Rubino with JCC Police.

I would suggest that you that question the veracity of websites like Jezebel before you spread the hype.

It sounds like the authorities handled it in a reasonable manner.

Didn't you get all worked up over a headline on a gossip site just a few weeks ago, and when someone else read the whole story, it was different than what you were claiming?

Also, why in the world, would you want this girl to be charged with a felony?

Stalwart
04-11-2014, 11:42 PM
I would guess that the state's legislatures think that prosecuting the minors (children -- maybe) who take nude photos of themselves will act as a deterrent. I don't think that methodology would be overly effective unless you got serious about prosecuting it, which then opens the argument of "does law enforcement not have better things to do with their time?"

Using my in-laws as an example (they are divorced and dad -- yes dad is raising the 17-year old daughter), I think there are some parents that are just not that involved with what their kids are really doing and this is an issue that could/should likely start with involved parents. Last summer my wife googled her sister's (16 at the time) name looking for something else and found some pretty racy photos on a blog -- dad, mom, other sister in her hometown were all shocked. Nothing would be considered porn, but definitely stuff that was questionable. Turns out that dad had no real idea what she did on the computer, on her phone etc. and when they started asking some direct questions the answers they got shocked them.


....because if this is a crime, they are, in theory, punishing the victim.

I agree with your point. I do think the permanency of the internet doesn't get through to some people with the things they post online or send electronically. Unfortunately I think there are many people that are in for some rude awakenings in the future. Should they be held criminally accountable for it? Probably not. Could it close the door on a future opportunity? Maybe.

garhkal
04-12-2014, 04:20 AM
Didn't you get all worked up over a headline on a gossip site just a few weeks ago, and when someone else read the whole story, it was different than what you were claiming?

Yea i did, but even though i remember it being talked about for around 3 min on a news site, when i checked out both fox and CNN, neither had anything on it.. Those 2 were the top 2 sites that bing pulled up.


Also, why in the world, would you want this girl to be charged with a felony?

Cause to me if a law is on the books, it should apply to all who break it. No selective enforcement.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-13-2014, 12:18 AM
Yea i did, but even though i remember it being talked about for around 3 min on a news site, when i checked out both fox and CNN, neither had anything on it.. Those 2 were the top 2 sites that bing pulled up.



Cause to me if a law is on the books, it should apply to all who break it. No selective enforcement.

3770

garhkal
04-13-2014, 04:48 AM
Why the face palm? Do you not agree that there shouldn't be selective enforcement of laws?

Absinthe Anecdote
04-13-2014, 05:24 AM
Why the face palm? Do you not agree that there shouldn't be selective enforcement of laws?

I want my county and state prosecutors to apply the "common sense" test to each and every case they bring before a court.

I do not want them wasting their time, or my tax dollars, on cases that they have no chance of winning. Writing a broad blanket law and not allowing for the consideration of individual circumstances, seems foolish to me, and worthy of a double face palm.

AJBIGJ
04-14-2014, 12:38 PM
My libertarian-based sixth sense is on high alert from just having this discussion (or feeling compelled to).

Rusty Jones
04-14-2014, 02:45 PM
Because they're taking pictures of THEMSELVES, that's why. Do you really want to make them register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives, because they're something that isn't hurting anyone?

I really wish they could apply "common sense," but let's face the facts here: the "spirit" of the law is not enforceable in court. Only the "letter" of the law is. Would you like to change that? Well then, now the "spirit" of the law becomes more open to interpretation which would likely do even more harm.

We're stuck between a rock and hard place on this one.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-14-2014, 03:27 PM
My libertarian-based sixth sense is on high alert from just having this discussion (or feeling compelled to).

That sounds like it could be a very funny quip, but unfortunately it is way over my head.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-14-2014, 03:34 PM
Because they're taking pictures of THEMSELVES, that's why. Do you really want to make them register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives, because they're something that isn't hurting anyone?

I really wish they could apply "common sense," but let's face the facts here: the "spirit" of the law is not enforceable in court. Only the "letter" of the law is. Would you like to change that? Well then, now the "spirit" of the law becomes more open to interpretation which would likely do even more harm.

We're stuck between a rock and hard place on this one.

It sounds like they did apply common sense in this case. She was not charged with a felony, and the matter was referred to the county juvenile intake office for informal handling.

The only problem that I see is that the OP referenced a blog and a gossip site that mischaracterized what actually happened.

State and local prosecutors make judgement calls like this all the time. The system is not perfect, but it works well sometimes.

SomeRandomGuy
04-14-2014, 04:37 PM
Why the face palm? Do you not agree that there shouldn't be selective enforcement of laws?

So, in your opinion we shouldn't selectively enforce laws? How would you feel if you loaned your car to your roomate and he used it to commit a roberry and murdered someone? According to the law you should also be charged with murder even though you had nothing to do with the murder? That might sound crazy but it actually happened and there is a guy serving life in prison for muder because his roomate used his car to commit a murder/robbery.

http://www.thenation.com/article/178984/why-florida-man-facing-life-prison-lending-out-his-car-and-going-sleep#

AJBIGJ
04-14-2014, 06:16 PM
That sounds like it could be a very funny quip, but unfortunately it is way over my head.

I wouldn't call it a gut-buster per se, I just have to shake my head when it's gotten to the point where based on some sort of arbitrary definition of what constitutes "adulthood", people are being charged with a crime just for taking naked pictures of themselves knowing it could wind up in someone else's hands. Or even the notion that we should be considering this as some form of "criminal behavior".

garhkal
04-14-2014, 09:18 PM
So, in your opinion we shouldn't selectively enforce laws? How would you feel if you loaned your car to your roomate and he used it to commit a roberry and murdered someone? According to the law you should also be charged with murder even though you had nothing to do with the murder? That might sound crazy but it actually happened and there is a guy serving life in prison for muder because his roomate used his car to commit a murder/robbery.

http://www.thenation.com/article/178984/why-florida-man-facing-life-prison-lending-out-his-car-and-going-sleep#

Imo its cause of 'selective' enforcement we see crap like DUI people still out and driving after 4+ arrests, Rich folk being let off when a poor person would get hammered and the rest of it. That is why i feel apply it consistently, and you won't get a '2 tier society'.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-14-2014, 09:21 PM
I wouldn't call it a gut-buster per se, I just have to shake my head when it's gotten to the point where based on some sort of arbitrary definition of what constitutes "adulthood", people are being charged with a crime just for taking naked pictures of themselves knowing it could wind up in someone else's hands. Or even the notion that we should be considering this as some form of "criminal behavior".

I hear you.

I don't have a problem with having a social worker or child services review those cases to determine if there is abuse of some sort going on, but it isn't criminal behavior.

garhkal
04-15-2014, 06:06 AM
So if say a 16 yr old has a pic of her self naked and she sends it to her BF (also 16) all is ok. But as soon as said BF hits 18, it all of a suddenly becomes an issue, of him having child porn?

Rusty Jones
04-15-2014, 02:18 PM
So if say a 16 yr old has a pic of her self naked and she sends it to her BF (also 16) all is ok. But as soon as said BF hits 18, it all of a suddenly becomes an issue, of him having child porn?

That's the problem with our legal system when it comes to sex crimes and minors. Way too dogmatic. Way too black-and-white, with no grey areas.

You can chop a woman's arms off, and get less time than if you would've raped her. And you don't have to go on some permanent national registry that all of your neighbors are going to see. Strange, considering that I'd have more to fear from a man in my neighborhood who chops arms off. Between being forced to take a cock in my ass and losing my arms, I'd choose the cock every time.

I don't know why, but we're way too focused on sex crimes.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-15-2014, 02:25 PM
LOL!

Classic Rusty...

Shaken1976
04-15-2014, 06:14 PM
And this is why I will continue to check my childs phone and email. She isn't old enough for Facebook...yet I still check often to make sure she hasn't opened one. She has a tablet that I check often as well. Phone and tablet stay in the living room when not in use and I have free access to them.

Measure Man
04-15-2014, 09:50 PM
Rich folk being let off when a poor person would get hammered and the rest of it.

So better lawyers shouldn't be allowed to charge more than shitty lawyers?

Measure Man
04-15-2014, 09:50 PM
And this is why I will continue to check my childs phone and email. She isn't old enough for Facebook...yet I still check often to make sure she hasn't opened one. She has a tablet that I check often as well. Phone and tablet stay in the living room when not in use and I have free access to them.

Good luck with that when she turns 15 :-)

garhkal
04-15-2014, 09:56 PM
And this is why I will continue to check my childs phone and email. She isn't old enough for Facebook...yet I still check often to make sure she hasn't opened one. She has a tablet that I check often as well. Phone and tablet stay in the living room when not in use and I have free access to them.

If she's not old enough for facebook, why do you let her have a tablet AND phone?

raider8169
04-15-2014, 10:06 PM
I think the girl should be charged. I dont think it is a crime to take the photos of herself, knowing that it instantly becomes child porn, but she is still distributing child porn and that is a crime as well.

It doesnt matter if it goes to another minor or not but as we all know once a photo is out there, it can always be recalled.

I think she should be charged and if the judge lets her off than it should cause the law to be changed. I do not think what she did was a crime, she could be the victim in all this after all. Still the law is the law until it is challenged and changed.

Shaken1976
04-15-2014, 10:13 PM
If she's not old enough for facebook, why do you let her have a tablet AND phone?

The tablet is great for long trips and stuff like that. The phone is because she is a competitive dancer and is very involved in our church group so she is not always with me. I like being able to call her directly.

Rainmaker
04-23-2014, 09:30 PM
Because they're taking pictures of THEMSELVES, that's why. Do you really want to make them register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives, because they're something that isn't hurting anyone?

I really wish they could apply "common sense," but let's face the facts here: the "spirit" of the law is not enforceable in court. Only the "letter" of the law is. Would you like to change that? Well then, now the "spirit" of the law becomes more open to interpretation which would likely do even more harm.

We're stuck between a rock and hard place on this one.


kinda like making the drinking age 21. All they did was take a bunch of kids that are gonna drink anyway and make criminals out of em.