Prosecutors Still Want To Charge Girl Who Sent Naked Photo Of Herself For Child Porn

from the crime-and-punishment dept

You may recall last year that prosecutors in Pennsylvania wanted to charge some girls who had taken either nude or partially unclothed photos of themselves, and then sent them via their mobile phones, with "child porn" charges. This seems pretty ridiculous no matter how you look at it, and it was good that a judge temporarily blocked the prosecutor from moving forward. You would hope that this would give the prosecutor a chance to rethink this idea, and perhaps realize that it's beyond extreme.

Instead? The prosecutor is appealing the ruling and still wants to charge at least one girl with child porn charges. The ACLU is fighting back, not just for this particular girl, but apparently over the threats of felony charges on 16-girls, who were then forced to participate in a "re-education" class to avoid charges. I have no problem with children being educated about why such things are really bad ideas, but to threaten them with felony charges, especially when even the mothers of one of the girls says that photos were just some girls goofing around, and in most cases no worse than what you'd find it a typical Victoria's Secret catalog? That seems like a prosecutor going too far.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Quick Brown Fox, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 4:02pm

    Will slumber parties be next?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 4:14pm

    Occasionally, one must destroy the village in order to save it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 4:17pm

    Re:

    I can think of a few villages in the US that could go with being destroyed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    ratt, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 4:23pm

    "in most cases no worse than what you'd find it a typical Victoria's Secret catalog"

    In that case, all of the models are over 18.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 4:31pm

    prosecutors...

    out to make a name for themselves. Probably planning to run for office on a "protect children" platform. I think it would be funny if the prosecutor's own children were involved; do you think they would be prosecuted too?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    :), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 4:40pm

    Some people are histerical.

    Some people get blinded when they hear the words "child pornography".
    Now the funny part is that the law is to protect children from exploitation but probably those childs are being exploited for political gain.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 4:52pm

    I'll say this again and I'll get tons of criticism for it, but...

    Child pornography laws do not differentiate between who produces the porn. Whether a 50 year old father is taking sexual pictures of his daughter or whether the daughter is taking sexual pictures of herself. Under the law, the guy and the daughter are both criminals.

    You're blaming the prosecutor for this. It's not his or her fault. If the law is wrong, the burden is on the state's legislature to change it. The prosecutor is sworn to prosecute criminals who violate the laws of his state, not to sweep them under the rug and pretend they don't exist when you disagree with them.

    Everyone who thinks the girls should not be prosecuted should write their local state's legislator and demand their child pornography laws should be changed. Only then will this problem be fixed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 4:57pm

    If an underage girl looks at herself naked in a mirror, can she be arrested for viewing child porn?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 4:59pm

    Re:

    The state's legislature won't be changing anything--they're too busy passing more ill-conceived laws. (no pun)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 4:59pm

    Re:

    Absurd... The prosecutor always has the power to interpret extenuating circumstances and choose not to prosecute the crime. In this case you are flat wrong and so is the prosecutor who is exploiting these children rather than protecting them. This charge will not help the girl straighten herself out and be more discerning in the future... it will encourage her to go into the porn industry since she won't be able to get any other professional job with these absurd charges on her record.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 5:03pm

    Re: Re:

    "In this case you are flat wrong and so is the prosecutor who is exploiting these children rather than protecting them"

    So you think the real solution is to leave this stupid law on the books as it is? That's your solution? Wow. Great plan.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 5:03pm

    if parents take pictures of there new babies in the bathtub, it that considered child porn? If so, my mom, and most of her generation are guilty

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    ColonelPanik, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 5:07pm

    Age of consent?

    Pennsylvania 16M/F 16M/M 16F/F

    http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

    So she can say yes but not show her body?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 5:11pm

    Re: Age of consent?

    Same is true in Sweden--age of consent 15, must be 18 for nude photography.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Him ThatIs, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 5:12pm

    Re: Ima Fish

    Going to extremes for petty occurances does not make sense. there is a thing called common sense and don't forget judgement calls. If a mother(yours/mine) shows those cute little naked baby pictures, is she a child pornagrapher?
    This is a case where the PARENTS should discipline. The girls were being kids. Forcing the stigma of child pornagraphers on them and their permanent record for this is textbook hateful.
    We should step back and consider the real picture here. The girls weren't trying to harm anyone, they have already been punished beyond the extent of their crime. They are kids. They WILL do stupid things, and I can gaurantee that you and I had done far worse as young people. Stop looking to hurt others and look to protect them, guide them and care for them. If you won't do that, then who is the bad person here.

    Peace to all with an open mind.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 5:16pm

    Re: Re: Ima Fish

    "Going to extremes for petty occurances does not make sense. there is a thing called common sense and don't forget judgement calls."

    Sure, let's assume your judgment as prosecutor is good and you decide not to prosecute these girls. But what about the next prosecutor, what if he's a religious nut? Or the one after that, she's trying to prove she's tough on crime?

    The only real solution is to change the law. That will solve the problem, not just bury it for someone else to dig up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 5:17pm

    This really is absurd simply to the point of prosecuting the person for exploiting themselves. Even if she wasn't old enough to consent, there wasn't a second party participating in the decision making process. The recipient of the image didn't have to acknowledge anything before receiving it.

    These laws are intended to protect minors from being exploited, not to punish children for making bad choices. How doesn't destroying the minors life over a stupid decision that will already haunt them for a very long time, make any sense? Punishment for stupid decisions that do not impact others should be left to the minors parents.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Volucris (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 5:23pm

    Re: Some people are histerical.

    What's funny is that these girls are being treated as "children" when it comes to the act, but as adults when it comes to the law.

    To be culpable of a felony implies the knowledge that something sinister is being done. If that's the case, it sort of takes the 'child' out of 'child pornography.' What fun to have a felony attached to your name because you technically fell beneath an arbitrary number.

    Once you strip away the scary buzzword, the prosecutor is either going after girls who didn't truly do anything wrong or children who didn't know any better.

    You're right, the lawyer is exploiting them more than they ever could have.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 5:32pm

    Re: Re:

    "I can think of a few villages in the US that could go with being destroyed"

    Lets start with Texas, then.... well I think that about covers them

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 5:37pm

    Re: Re: Re:

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 5:40pm

    Re:

    Apparently. I read about a couple who had their kids taken away recently for that

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 5:42pm

    Re:

    If she's producing child porn then she's a child and should not be prosecuted as an adult. If she's an adult then it's not child porn.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    stephen, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 6:05pm

    their real crime

    like the guy who jumped the tape at newark airport, the girls' real crime was embarrassing the authorities and showing them to be fools. thus they must be pressed on, for they consider themselves infallible and to do otherwise would hurt their image.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    FITZ, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 6:12pm

    Re:

    That means "In some cases, worse than what you'd find in a typical Victoria's Secret catalog". And, while they are minors, I'm pretty sure that means child porn.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    the orangebox, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 6:56pm

    missing the point!

    The point is that 16 girls were forced/given the choice to attend re education probrams on the evils of what their awful undie pics have done to regular society. that in it self should have been equal punishment/rehab. Now some jerk off DA with delusions of grandeur wants to make a career choice to chase teens to jail time...what a loser that D.A. is..maybe he should watch less law and order and read the constitution.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 7:01pm

    Re: Re:

    > And, while they are minors, I'm pretty sure that means child porn.

    Not necessarily. The Supreme Court ruled a while back that mere nudity (even of a minor) is neither obscene nor pornography.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 7:03pm

    What's funny is that these girls are being treated as "children" when it comes to the act, but as adults when it comes to the law.


    Nicely put.

    That means "In some cases, worse than what you'd find in a typical Victoria's Secret catalog". And, while they are minors, I'm pretty sure that means child porn.


    The quote was "NO worse than what you'd find in a typical Victoria's secret catalog". Nudity, even underage nudity, does not automatically equal pornography in the eyes of the law. A case must be made for that distinction. Perhaps the pictures do qualify, but probably not if they're being compared to a lingerie catalog that's handed out like flyers in malls across the country ever day...

    There have been a number of mainstream films shown in theaters throughout the years that feature underage nudity and I'm not aware of a single one of them experiencing any legal fallout as a result.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 7:03pm

    Re:

    > Under the law, the guy and the daughter are both criminals.

    Not necessarily. The Supreme Court ruled a while back that mere nudity (even of a minor) is neither obscene nor pornography.

    > You're blaming the prosecutor for this. It's not his or her fault.
    > The prosecutor is sworn to prosecute criminals who violate the
    > laws of his state

    Baloney. Prosecutors plea out cases and drop charges all the time. Prosecutors have wide discretion in both who and what to prosecute.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 7:04pm

    Re: Re:

    "Absurd... The prosecutor always has the power to interpret extenuating circumstances and choose not to prosecute the crime."

    The term you're looking for is 'prosecutoral discression.'

    This is a case that could use some.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 7:05pm

    Re:

    > If an underage girl looks at herself naked in a mirror, can she be
    > arrested for viewing child porn?

    Or if she masturbates, can she be charged with sexual assault on a minor?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 7:07pm

    think of the children!

    Clearly, the prosecutor is seeking to protect the children-- by convicting them as felons, ruining their lives, and throwing in jail with dangerous criminals.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    John Duncan Yoyo (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 7:44pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    The Village where this prosecutor sleeps in PA should be a candidate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 7:54pm

    Re: think of the children!

    The prosecutor should be considered a child pornographer.

    Wyoming County PA DA George Skumanick Jr is the prosecutor in question and thoroughly lacking in common sense and decency. I think an old fashioned stoning is a proper response to idiots like this. At least firing him in the next election is appropriate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    angelwolf71885, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 9:42pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    more like lets start with California ide like to see that state because the USA nuclear missile testing ground without any notice to the people who live there

    eliminate the socialist threat
    then we can talk about Texas

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 9:58pm

    Re: Re:

    Absurd... The prosecutor always has the power to interpret extenuating circumstances and choose not to prosecute the crime.

    Yeah, it's called selective enforcement. So how about we just make everything illegal and then use selective enforcement?

    Of course then you'd have to rely on the prosecutor's discretion and isn't that discretion what you're complaining here?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 10:03pm

    Re: prosecutors...

    I think it would be funny if the prosecutor's own children were involved; do you think they would be prosecuted too?

    Of course not. That would go against the "common sense" selective enforcement some here are promoting. See, that's the thing about selective enforcement: it makes it much easier to have bad laws on the books because they won't be applied to "important" people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 10:09pm

    Re:

    If an underage girl looks at herself naked in a mirror, can she be arrested for viewing child porn?

    No, because no image is being recorded. But, if she takes a picture of herself naked in a mirror then yes, she can.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 10:21pm

    Re: Re:

    Or if she masturbates, can she be charged with sexual assault on a minor?

    Some states might say "yes". They view it as their duty to protect their citizens from committing immoral acts (such as masturbation or other non-reproductive sex acts) on themselves. Accordingly, some states have decided that it is better to send people to prison than to let them masturbate. I can well imagine that they would consider masturbation by a child to be a felony.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Chill, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 11:23pm

    Re: Re:

    does one record an image when they view it? I think not good sir.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Azrael, Jan 16th, 2010 @ 12:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    " eliminate the socialist threat "

    yes, because thinking about the well being of your fellow man is evil and against the pursuit of profit while drowning in your enemies blood.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jan 16th, 2010 @ 3:07am

    Re: Re: think of the children!

    "Wyoming County PA DA George Skumanick Jr is the prosecutor in question and thoroughly lacking in common sense and decency. I think an old fashioned stoning is a proper response to idiots like this."

    Well that's going a bit far - but clearly he is the one in need of re-education.

    Here is a book that he ought to read:

    http://www.watersidepress.co.uk/acatalog/info_9781872870717.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    DS, Jan 16th, 2010 @ 5:49am

    Re: Re:

    "And, while they are minors, I'm pretty sure that means child porn."

    Wow, some 2000+ years of culture disagree. Last I checked the image of a nude "child" doesn't instantaneously turn everyone into a sexual rape frenzy.

    Nor does something magical happen between the last second of being 17 and the first second of being 18.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    DS, Jan 16th, 2010 @ 5:51am

    Re:

    In order...

    Yes. I still find it odd that a picture of something that isn't a crime is a crime.

    No. Prosecutors have quite a bit of leeway.

    Yes. The laws do need to be made sensible, and without this, this situation will happen again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    antitheman, Jan 16th, 2010 @ 8:28am

    this has happened

    what you say has happened. look at www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Apr-27-Sun-2003/opinion/21184422.html
    this one might be a bit iffy but i just saw a similar, but even more innocent incidence on the news. can't find the article on the net though... same deal as this. The problem is the retarded prosecutor, yes change the law too, but if laws must be so exact and followed to the letter that there is no room for discretion, like imafish suggests, you wouldn't need the prosecutors, attorneys, etc. You would just follow what was written to the letter. Doesn't seem like a wise way to do things...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    JackSombra (profile), Jan 16th, 2010 @ 9:01am

    Re:

    You're blaming the prosecutor for this. It's not his or her fault. Yes it is http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-discretion/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Jan 16th, 2010 @ 10:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Ima Fish

    The point is that prosecuting these girls may not solve the problem. That is, if these girls go to prison and are forever labeled child sex offenders, what are the chances that would get the laws changed? 75%, 30%, 5%? Nobody really knows. Yet you advocate destroying their lives on an unknown chance that we can help this not happen to others in the future? Let's start with not letting it happen now, and go from there.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2010 @ 11:24am

    Most of their families agreed to undertake a "re-education" program called for by the prosecutor, but three refused. Prosecutors were seeking to press charges against one of the three girls. The law should be enforced. They were offered an easy way out but the parents refused to use this as a way to teach a lesson to the girls. The fact that the girls will be stamped as sex offenders will be on the parents not on the prosecutors.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Jan 16th, 2010 @ 11:52am

    Re:

    They were offered an easy way out but the parents refused to use this as a way to teach a lesson to the girls. The fact that the girls will be stamped as sex offenders will be on the parents not on the prosecutors.

    So you want to ruin the girls' lives in order to teach the parents a lesson?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2010 @ 11:57am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Nice straw man.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2010 @ 11:59am

    Re:

    No.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2010 @ 12:16pm

    Re:

    Oh come on. Like the laws are not selectively enforced now. All kinds of laws go unenforced. Is it too much to ask a prosecuting attorney to use some common sense?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2010 @ 12:21pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    That's bullshit. What state throws a kid in jail for masturbating?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2010 @ 12:25pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Wow, some 2000+ years of culture disagree. Last I checked the image of a nude "child" doesn't instantaneously turn everyone into a sexual rape frenzy.

    There people today who seem to think otherwise.

    Nor does something magical happen between the last second of being 17 and the first second of being 18.

    According to the (magical) law, it does.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2010 @ 2:27pm

    Re: Re:

    So you want to ruin the girls' lives in order to teach the parents a lesson?
    No but apparently the parents do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2010 @ 2:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That's bullshit. What state throws a kid in jail for masturbating?

    All of them if they take pictures and send them to people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2010 @ 2:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That's bullshit. What state throws a kid in jail for masturbating?

    Texas passed a law against selling and possessing dildos because they didn't even want *adults* masturbating.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2010 @ 2:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Nice straw man.

    Not at all. Maybe you should look that term up before using it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2010 @ 2:51pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    The term you're looking for is 'prosecutoral discression.'
    This is a case that could use some.


    That's exactly what's happening in this case. You just don't so happen to like the prosecutor's discretion. Too bad. When you get to be the prosecutor there, you can use your own discretion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2010 @ 2:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Ima Fish

    The point is that prosecuting these girls may not solve the problem.

    The police, the prosecutor and the legislature all seem to disagree with you. Let's see what the court says now. Of course, you're so much smarter than all of them, aren't you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2010 @ 2:59pm

    Re: Re:

    ...she's a child and should not be prosecuted as an adult.

    I don't believe she is. She's being prosecuted as a minor who committed a crime. Minors are not immune from the law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    James, Jan 16th, 2010 @ 3:24pm

    child porn

    This is a clear cut case of the prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves and get in the law books where their case can be sited for years to come..Its truly no longer justice ..but the precentage rate of wins and losses that motivate the justice system now..Give one of them a clear cut case of guilty to defend..and watch them run..
    we try to teach our childern how to be good adults..now it seems we have to teach the adults how not to be childish

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Ryan Diederich, Jan 16th, 2010 @ 3:27pm

    Look at the numbers....

    You can tell a law or practice is immoral when 50 out of 60 posters disagree with what is happening.

    None of this would happen in a direct democracy, except that just isnt feasible. But common sense should still prevail.

    Of course they shouldnt be prosecuted, what on earth does this guy think he is doing.

    Hmmmmmmm id love to put minors in jail with felony charges when they really did nothing wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    btr1701, Jan 16th, 2010 @ 3:40pm

    Re: Re: Legal Insanity

    > No, because no image is being recorded.

    That only means they're blocked from technically charging her with child porn. Using the prosecutor's (dubious) logic in this case, a minor looking at herself naked in a mirror could still be charged with felony indecency with a child and/or voyeurism, which are both offenses which result in sex offender status upon conviction.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    smr3226, Jan 16th, 2010 @ 6:05pm

    Re: prosecutors

    In the mean time several lives will be damaged if it goes to trial and any reasonable jury will acquit. Stupid laws beg for jury nullification. Child porn laws are intended to protect children, not harm them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2010 @ 9:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Legal Insanity

    a minor looking at herself naked in a mirror could still be charged with felony indecency with a child

    Citation, please.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Jan 16th, 2010 @ 11:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal Insanity

    > > a minor looking at herself naked in a mirror could still be
    > > charged with felony indecency with a child

    > Citation, please.

    Citation to what? It's a legal analysis based on the prosecutor's theory of the case at issue. If a minor can be charged with manufacturing child porn merely for taking pictures of herself, then other sex crimes would also apply to minors similarly situated:

    -- If she masturbates, then sexual assault on a minor would apply.

    --If she looks at herself naked, then voyeurism and felony indecency would apply.

    If turning the victim of the crime into the perpetrator is valid for child porn, then it's logically valid for other sex crimes as well.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jan 17th, 2010 @ 9:37am

    Re:

    The law should be enforced. They were offered an easy way out but the parents refused to use this as a way to teach a lesson to the girls. The fact that the girls will be stamped as sex offenders will be on the parents not on the prosecutors.

    Come on - this is ridiculous.

    The law is ridiculous and should be changed. This however doesn't excuse the prosecutor. The excuse you are making for him is the "only following orders" excuse which does not hold water. The re-education program is also a ridiculous and the parents are quite right to refuse to co-operate with it.

    Anyone who defends the law or the prosecutor, or blames the parents or the kids is desperately in need of "common sense re-education" and needs to read this book:

    http://www.watersidepress.co.uk/acatalog/info_9781872870717.html
    or go on one of the courses that are run based on it.

    To repeat:

    yes of course the law should be changed.

    BUT no it should not be enforced in the meantime.

    The law will never be perfect.

    The prosecutor will never be perfect.

    BUT between them we ought to be able to get to a better state than either on their own could manage. That is why we have both.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jan 17th, 2010 @ 11:44am

    Your problem is that the prosecutor has no "boss"

    These types of situations require a more senior (and sensible) authority to say "No that is not what the law says."

    Consider the case in the UK where two policewomen were prevented from arranging reciprocal childcare because someone in OFSTED thought that the law required such arrangements to be regulated like paid for nurseries.

    There was an outcry (and a petition) and the government slapped ofsted down as follows:

    "However, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families announced on 12 October that it was never the Government’s intention to intervene in the arrangements parents make with friends to look after each other’s children, where there are no payments between them and the motivation is one of mutual aid. He has asked Ofsted to treat, with immediate effect, all these types of reciprocal childcare arrangements as beyond the scope of the childcare arrangements regulated under the Childcare Act 2006. He also announced that he is setting in train the process required to clarify the relevant legislation to exempt from registration these reciprocal childcare arrangements between friends. "

    More details here: http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20902

    Seems like you need a senior person to say "That was never the intention of the law"

    Unfortunately in the US it seems to be a little too easy for tinpot dictators like this prosecutor to set themselves up with no-one able to slap them down.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    Kenneth Welch, Jan 17th, 2010 @ 2:04pm

    Let the whores burn for it

    ...maybe they'll stop being such sluts now

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    DS, Jan 17th, 2010 @ 5:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Sorta my point.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    identicon
    DS, Jan 17th, 2010 @ 5:38pm

    Re:

    Do we get to ruin the Prosecutor's life for making a bad decision as well?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Jan 17th, 2010 @ 8:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "That's exactly what's happening in this case. You just don't so happen to like the prosecutor's discretion. Too bad. When you get to be the prosecutor there, you can use your own discretion."

    Um yeah. The entire term implies that actual prosecutor could be an insane jackass.

    Because that's his discretion.

    So, it worked as well as you'd expect, if you were George Orwell. I think he's a basket case. He's basking in his glory. The system works as expected.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Pete, Jan 17th, 2010 @ 9:23pm

    Re: Re:

    Yeah - cause laws that are inconsistently applied are just awesome... You're a moron. Not knowing whether something is likely to get you in jail, or laws that are just applied to 'bad guys' make the entire population live in fear. Simple laws, that are universally applied, allow a population to know what's right and what's wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2010 @ 9:37pm

    Re: Your problem is that the prosecutor has no "boss"

    These types of situations require a more senior (and sensible) authority to say "No that is not what the law says."

    In the US the person with the "authority" to say what the law means is called a "judge". That's what US courts are for.

    Unfortunately in the US it seems to be a little too easy for tinpot dictators like this prosecutor to set themselves up with no-one able to slap them down.

    Courts and judges. I don't know what you have in the UK if not that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2010 @ 9:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think everything should be up to MY discretion. I should be Emperor of the Universe.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2010 @ 9:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The system works as expected.

    Yeah, ain't "prosecutorial discretion" beautiful?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jan 18th, 2010 @ 12:47am

    Re: Re: Your problem is that the prosecutor has no "boss"

    "Courts and judges. I don't know what you have in the UK if not that."

    Yes we have those too - and juries as well - and I suppose the judge in this case will eventually fix this problem - but sometimes it helps if there is someone else in the system who can fix theproblem a bit quicker.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    icon
    JackSombra (profile), Jan 18th, 2010 @ 2:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Your problem is that the prosecutor has no "boss"

    Plus it's better if thing's can be stopped from getting so far as Courts and judges due to time it takes (and wholr time leaving the defendant left hanging) and the cost to both the individual and the state.

    If basic common sense can be used before resorting to the courts then it should be

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    identicon
    You Ass, Jan 18th, 2010 @ 7:25am

    Re:

    Hope its your village

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Jan 18th, 2010 @ 8:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ima Fish

    Of course, you're so much smarter than all of them, aren't you?

    That does seem fairly likely if the summary of this story is accurate. There's nothing about being cops, prosecutors, or legislators that necessitates genius, and wisdom is definitely not a prerequisite. What do you suggest, I just turn off my critical thinking and assume these guys must be on the ball, because they're getting paid to do this stuff?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    identicon
    HonGyakku, Oct 16th, 2011 @ 8:19am

    Re:

    this is the most idiotic thing i have ever heard. "Child pornography laws do not differentiate between who produces the porn. Whether a 50 year old father is taking sexual pictures of his daughter or whether the daughter is taking sexual pictures of herself. Under the law, the guy and the daughter are both criminals." Really?????? The law also states not to touch these minors inappropriately or in inappropriate places. Yet, i bet YOUR children bathe themselves, are you ready to prosecute them for touching under aged sexual parts? I bet you bathed them as children...are YOU now a child molester? are they child molesters for touching themselves? What about for looking at themselves in a mirror? That is "the likeness of" isnt it? youre ridiculous! By your own ratinale you would have to agree to these equally ridiculous arguments! How about using some common sense?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This