She's not a woman, she's a 16 year old girl. Also I have absolutely no problem with a woman facing the same penalties as a man if they break the law. That is the way it should be. There should be some penalty for what this kid did but I disagree with the child pornography charge. Even if it holds up and she goes away for a few years that will not serve society very well. She will come out a harder and worse person. That is usually what happens to teenagers who go away for awhile. You create a bigger problem than the one you locked up.
Sexting Victoria teen girl to be tried on child porn charge Girl, 16, faces child po
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
She's not a woman, she's a 16 year old girl. Also I have absolutely no problem with a woman facing the same penalties as a man if they break the law. That is the way it should be. There should be some penalty for what this kid did but I disagree with the child pornography charge. Even if it holds up and she goes away for a few years that will not serve society very well. She will come out a harder and worse person. That is usually what happens to teenagers who go away for awhile. You create a bigger problem than the one you locked up.
There is lots of debate to be had on this case and the topic in general. The boyfriend definitely used the pic as porn and gave it to girl #2 so under the statute would be guilty of distributing child porn and girl #1 was definitely guilty of manufacturing child porn because she knew it was a pornographic to her boyfriend but we come to the point this is 3 immature teenagers who probably all need to learn a lesson about responsibility but really don't need to have criminal records or be tagged for life as child pornographers.
The law is fluid, not static, and needs to change and adapt as things change and new situations arise. Do I think there needs to be some intervention into this situation? Yes. Do I think just girl #2 needs it? No, all 3 do. Do I think it should be a child porn charge? Not in this specific case but it would seem the prosecutor may not have any other viable charges available.
I don't think it should be 'child porn' either. But I do disagree about the girl who gave the pic to her boyfriend. I don't think giving a lover a picture of your own body should in any way shape or form be illegal. If she's old enough to consent, she's old enough to let that lover see her body. While it was poor judgement to entrust him with it, it shouldn't be illegal in any format. Her 'punishment' has already been doled out.
Her intent wasn't to distribute child porn. That is what makes it "oblique intent" rather than "direct intent" in the eyes of sane lawyers. Like throwing a rock off a bridge without looking and unintentionally nailing somebody on a boat below.
Age is what matters here lover or not. Her intent was direct intent. To make an image to sexually stimulate her boyfriend. Boy friend or not he was in possession of child porn.
No, more like grabbing something next to you to throw at that person to hurt them, but not paying attention to what you were grabbing before you threw it. Her intent was, 100%, to cause injury to someone.
Like I've said numerous times, I don't think child porn charges are apt in this case, but I also don't think she hasn't committed a crime.
Criminal intent is a necessary component of a “conventional” crime and involves a conscious decision on the part of one party to injure or deprive another
Defined as a desire to commit a specific act in the expectation that it will result in a specific outcome
Yep. Now we just need an appropriate law for these new crimes.
Defined as a desire to commit a specific act in the expectation that it will result in a specific outcome
Yep. Now we just need an appropriate law for these new crimes.
I guess, strictly speaking, since there isn't anything adequate on the books right now, she hasn't committed a crime. It should be a crime, in my opinion, it should be taken seriously. But either we (society) allows for the "adaptation" (for lack of a better term) of existing child porn laws to fit these types of crimes, or we start demanding that our legislators take these situations more seriously and draft appropriate legislation. How many flashing neon signs do we need before we go about defining the parameters of what is and what is not acceptable with how people are using social media and communications?
But from a cold, logical, strictly legal point of view, I can see where a completely valid argument can absolutely be made that no laws were broken.
The laws are playing catchup with technology, which is moving at break neck speed..
Can the law keep up with technology? - CNN.com
Can the law keep up with technology? - CNN.com
Which makes no sense as she was old enough to consent to sex. So she can have sex with an adult and there would be nothing illegal about it. Throw a camera in and it is? These laws contradict themselves.
I think it's pretty clear we're not doing an adequate enough job. Either we have situations like this one where a young girl, who should face consequences for her actions, is faced with excessive and inappropriate penalties and charges. Or we have situations where nothing at all is being done to attempt to rectify real harm being done to people.
It reminds me very much of the days before stalking laws came into effect, the whole "we can't do anything until they do something that violates the laws", when clearly the laws at the time were simply not adequate.
BINGO Was her intent specifically to distribute child pornography? No. Is she guilty of other potential crimes? Yes.
They can have sex all they want but to make and pass an image of pornography has age limits. The intent of the underage girl was pornographic. To get her boyfriend off.
I can agree it is not kiddie porn for girl #1 (except in black & white letter of the law) but she should be involved in some sort of counselling with the other 2.because that tag Where I am at with this is they should all be in some sort of counselling or diversionary program, not going to jail and being labeled as sexual child abusers doesn't go away when they hit 18.
BTW Karrie...if you give hubby a nude pic of yourself by definition it is porn. The intent that it is only for him and he is your spouse/lover doesn't change that.
Note I never said it wasn't porn. I said, if she's old enough to consent to sex, she should be old enough to let her lover see her body, and it shouldn't be illegal, if it's her lover seeing it.
I've also said multiple times that child porn is not an appropriate charge, that the law needs to catch up to the actions occurring, of spreading someone's naked photos without consent.
By the time she started to spread it around it was third party. It was the exboyfriend who initiated the distribution. I doubt he had permission to distribute or possess after they broke up.
It becomes very tough. Is it legal when he is her lover? What if they are virgins and its just for him to masturbate to? Does that change things? What if they are lovers but split, is he then possessing child porn? So many grey areas it makes ones head spin.
The question also arises of privacy. I cannot put a pic on Facebook or any other site, even if I try to make it private, is still possibly available to the public so do we have an expectation of privacy. Same for texting pics. Is there a legitimate expectation of privacy?
In the we need to re-examine the laws to deal with these ever changing circumstances.
