When a law turns into a Paradox - Youth and Sexuality

[Nachtmahr]

Hello there, everyone who might be reading this. I made this post in particular due to a story i heard long ago, which then happened to resurface yesterday. I spent almost all night discussing this with a friend, but sadly, it turned out that neither of us could find a way that any of this could possibly work out.

Basically, it's a well known fact that in many countries around the world, the same rules apply. The rule in question is;

'At a certain age you are lawfully allowed to take part in consensual sexual acts.'

And of course, that's great, otherwise life might grow boring in the long run, but soon we run into the problem. And the problem is that in most countries, any pornographic content featuring anyone below the age of 18 is deemed illegal and usually named 'Child porn' even though these individuals are hardly children anymore. Anyway, that's not my problem, my problem is as follows;

A few years back i was told a story about a girl who was of legal age to take part in consensual sex, yet she was not yet of age to participate in production of pornography, but as it turns out, she had been taking pictures of her herself nude and been sending a few of those to her boyfriend. Of course, why wouldn't she? Almost everyone out there below 30 will have tried 'sexting' on their phone, sharing dirty pictures, and so on. Those young enough to have mobile phones with camera's while they were still too young to take part in any kind of professional pornography might even remember doing it further back than that.

Now the problem is, this poor girl ended up being arrested, and actually charged with 'production and distribution of child pornography' and even served a sentence. She would from that point on always have that on her CV, that she was basically a child pornographist, although the only pictures she had 'produced' was actually naked pictures of herself for her boyfriend, who received a fine for possession of these pictures.
____________________

Now this is where the discussion begins, and just to make it a lot easier we can go by the rules of this site, which would be that any 16 years old person (in game) are allowed to take part in different sexual acts, yet no pornographic material of 16 or 17 year olds is accepted.

Now, lets consider E here a country, a country in which the above is the law. Does that mean that a 16/17 year old can actually be punished for keeping pornographic material of themselves? Technically, it would be illegal to own any naked pictures of yourself, as you are not yet of legal age, as the girl mentioned above wasn't, who ended up being punished for producing pornographic material with herself.

The way i see it, it turns into a great paradox, that someone of age to take part in sexual relationships, is not actually allowed to take part in any pornographic material, which means that you are allowed to have sex with someone who's 16 years old, but not to 'imagine' it? I don't even know how that works out in reality.

I hope whoever is still reading will see the problem I'm having with making thing's fit together like pieces of a puzzle, because technically this law would mean, and probably should even mean, that you, yourself could be charged for production of illegal stuff just because you were taking naked pictures of yourself, as the picture would be illegal.

Consider this; You were having sex with a 16/17 year old in this country of 'Elliquiy' and you snap a few shots of it because, hey, why not? You liked this, you had fun, you'd like to think back at this at some point in the future as a very warm and erotic experience for you. Yet, imagine that you at some point are charged with something, and they confiscate your PC or cellphone, and they find these pictures. Perhaps one of the officers knows the girl and can confirm that she is old enough to have sex, but not to participate in pornography. This would mean that what goes on in this picture, is not actually illegal, but the picture itself is illegal, and i really don't think that adds up in way.

So, the only way i see a solution to this is to either heighten the age at which you are allowed to participate in sexual acts to the age of which you are also allowed to take part in pornography, or lower the age of which you are allowed to take part in pornography to the age of which you are allowed to take part in pornography to the age of which you are allowed to have sex.

What are your thoughts on this? Should it be illegal for someone of age to have sex, to have pictures of themselves in sexual situations, although the pictures would actually be deemed illegal in the hands of anyone else? Or do you think that these pictures should perhaps be lawfully 'ignored' if the youngster in question can confirm that all of these pictures of videos were taken and made with their consent? Or do you have a complete different view on this?

Disclaimer; I am not suggesting that any pornographic material of anyone under the age of 18 should be allowed on the site, nor am i trying to support any illegal pornographic production, i merely think this is an interesting paradox that doesn't add up.

[vtboy]

Obviously, a law that punishes the people it is supposed to protect is deeply flawed. I'm not sure, however, that it is necessary either to raise the age of consent, or lower the age at which one can participate in the production and publication of pornography. The solution, I think, is much simpler.

The child pornography law should simply provide an exception to prosecution in favor of those who are under 18 and choose to circulate materials depicting themselves for non-commercial purposes. This way, 16 year olds who snap photos of themselves and share them with friends and lovers (hopefully not with mom and dad) would not face the specter of criminal prosecution, but criminal sanctions would still be available against those who would exploit those under 18.

[Nachtmahr]

Well, it's not a bad point you're making, and I've been thinking something along those lines, but then again, those pictures could slip out to be exploited, or simply end up in the wrong hands. Say, the 16 year old in question recognizes the fact that someone might actually want to pay for these pcitures. Or even wrose yet, some of the recipiants of the pictures in question might actually decide to do something bad with them, and then we're back at the point where we have to ask; Who would be directly responsible?

It would'nt be very democratic if some were allowed to do this or some weren't, because one girl sold hers, and another gave them away. And then yet again we face a different problem, because how would you prove that you owned these pictures with the consent of whoever would be responsible for manufacturing them? It would still have to be either legal or illegal, it would'nt be the democratic solution to make it half legel and half illegal.

But, as stated above, not a bad point.

[Callie Del Noire]

http://www.annarbor.com/news/a-young-man-struggles-with-the-sex-offender-label/
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/teens_sex_offenders_horseplay.html
http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/news/teen-sex-offender

The law is good but clearly needs more reform and processes to it.  One thing ive noticed is it being used as a lever by DAs for sentencing.

There is no presumption of innocence or misunderstanding if you wind up on the registery. Odds are, once you're on it, you're on it for life. What good is a plea that contains that for something that would have been 'just kids' before the list? Too many DAs seem to think of it as another hammer in their tool box to get the pleas of guilty and pad their 'win' column.

What happened to the burden of proving guilt was on the DA? I don't like the fact that too many 'innocents' are going on the list. When did it become 'better than an innocent get punished, than to let 10 guilty men go free?'.

The list is a good thing. There simply needs to be more administration and rational thought put it. This should be a way to protect us from predators, not to brand a permanent scarlet 'A' on anyone the DA can apply the law to (however wide or extremely it goes).

I mean.. kids sexting are getting threatened with it.

[Chris Brady]

Callie, it gets worse.  Once your on it, you are done.  You cannot get job, housing will turn you down, welfare won't touch you, and you can't legally leave the country anymore because you are considered dangerous and not allowed a passport.

And this is ignoring the stigma of what your peers will do to you when the find out.

You are consigned to conditions worse than prison.  Because in prison, you still get fed, clothed and housed.

[Callie Del Noire]

Callie, it gets worse.  Once your on it, you are done.  You cannot get job, housing will turn you down, welfare won't touch you, and you can't legally leave the country anymore because you are considered dangerous and not allowed a passport.

And this is ignoring the stigma of what your peers will do to you when the find out.

You are consigned to conditions worse than prison.  Because in prison, you still get fed, clothed and housed.

I know that.. I had a squadron mate accused of molesting his step daughter (as the prequel to divorce proceedings). He was told he was done if they proved anything. He'd lose his clearance, his rating, his position in the command. Then the legal officer explained the rest. Turned out the weekend he supposedly had done this act, he was on a bombing practice run several states away.

It was scary for a week or two though. Cops would show up to take him in for 'questioning' and he'd come back a day or so later.. to the barracks since she'd got a restraining order. And our CMC (command master chief) had people standing watch on his room. (We thought he was being a tool, but it turned out that he was covering the guy's ass. As his wife filed further charges and only having two petty officers in his room ALL night did a lot to shoot it down.)

He lost a TON of cash to her over the month and a half, and she sold a crap ton of his stuff. We had to get a fund together to get him uniforms and civilian clothing. She made his life HELL for like eight weeks or so.

[keradi01]

I'm not really that familiar with law, but from what I can see, this is a conflict between two different portions of the law. The one that determines age of consent, and one that determines what it means to be an adult. Since obviously the two are not the same, stupid stuff like what happened in the OP example can happen.

One of the biggest problems I find with law is how more people are reading it by the letter rather while forgetting that the point of a law is to be a guideline on how to deal with an act that would be considered illegal so as to carry out the INTENT behind it. Laws are written because someone did something and a lawmaker thought it that isn't cool. And as someone who has taken a political science class, I've read about MULTIPLE occasions where a law had to be rewritten or expanded upon because of special cases or cases that shouldn't be punished by a law. So instead of trying to carry out the intent and try to figure out if a case should be an exception or as the basis of rewording a law, the law is just carried out without such thoughts being put behind it.

And yeah, I know that this isn't always the case, heck once my father got put up on assault charges, but got off because the "victim" was antagonizing one of my father's friend/coworker and then lied about it, saying the assault was out of nowhere. However, that still doesn't mean that a lot of people that work in law are just inflexible to the point of not caring about the fact that law, at its fundamental intent, is to protect people.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm not really that familiar with law, but from what I can see, this is a conflict between two different portions of the law. The one that determines age of consent, and one that determines what it means to be an adult. Since obviously the two are not the same, stupid stuff like what happened in the OP example can happen.

One of the biggest problems I find with law is how more people are reading it by the letter rather while forgetting that the point of a law is to be a guideline on how to deal with an act that would be considered illegal so as to carry out the INTENT behind it. Laws are written because someone did something and a lawmaker thought it that isn't cool. And as someone who has taken a political science class, I've read about MULTIPLE occasions where a law had to be rewritten or expanded upon because of special cases or cases that shouldn't be punished by a law. So instead of trying to carry out the intent and try to figure out if a case should be an exception or as the basis of rewording a law, the law is just carried out without such thoughts being put behind it.

And yeah, I know that this isn't always the case, heck once my father got put up on assault charges, but got off because the "victim" was antagonizing one of my father's friend/coworker and then lied about it, saying the assault was out of nowhere. However, that still doesn't mean that a lot of people that work in law are just inflexible to the point of not caring about the fact that law, at its fundamental intent, is to protect people.

The problem is.. a LOT of legislature types go 'WE CANNOT LET PERVS OFF' and won't go any further. Anything that can be REMOTELY spun by the media as letting 'perverts' off the list. I see damnable little press on the abuses of the list. It takes a LOT of yelling and screaming to get someone to say ANYTHING against someone going on the list. Like one of the potential DA abuse cases I heard about..was from my friend.. who was DEFENDING the kid that the DA wanted to put on the list. The words that got the charges dropped were.. 'conflict of interest' when he pointed out that said DA was a relative of the girlfriend he had 'victimized'. An overprotective relative. Most abuses of the list get quietly brushed under the carpet and ignored.

[Petronius]

These laws have killed more young people than they have saved. Teenagers have their futures wiped out because their underage-by-a-month girlfriend went down on them. Some of them commit suicide. Young men end up on the register because they got busted urinating on a fence on their way home. Some of them commit suicide. 17 year olds are prosecuted for taking a naughty shot of themselves on their phone. Some of them commit suicide.

When prudery and "think of the children" intersect, lives are ruined and they are often the very people the laws were intended to protect. But as Callie said, if you try to change the law you're branded an enabler of child molesters. Personally I think you'd be better off without elected DAs and prosecuters, at least that would cut down on the prosecutorial zeal a bit.

[Serephino]

The media is definitely part of the problem.  A while back a lot of daytime talk shows were talking about the growing trend of sexting.  Naturally, parents got their panties in a knot over it.  One DA got the bright idea to make an example of some boys.  One girl sent a naked picture of herself and sent it to her boyfriend.  He sent it to all his friends.  She got upset, and when her parents found out they started foaming at the mouth.  The DA and the parents decided to slap the boys with a child pornography charge, and they were convicted. 

While I don't think teenagers should be doing this, I think charging them as criminals is a bit extreme.  Teenagers don't think.  I know, I was one not that long ago.  If a girl takes a naked picture of herself and it gets around, well, it's her own stupid fault. 

[Contacaton]

I've thought about this in the past, and I must say that I personally am in favor of the 'legal porn' age being lowered to 16. To me, it makes no logical sense to allow people to participate in the act at 16, but make them wait to observe it until they're 18. I mean, come on, you can have it but you can't watch it? How does that make sense?

I also agree that charging teens for producing/possessing child pornography like that is ridiculous. Especially with the almost-18-years-old-anyways. As Nachtmahr said, they're barely children at all, and they're being charged like the pictures were of much younger kids.

Gah. There's too much to get angry about these days.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Honestly, I’m in favor of raising the age that required for someone to produce and sell pornography.  The age of 16 is certainly too young for someone to fully understand the consequences and ramifications of that decision.  From the controversy surrounding the Girls Gone Wild tapes and other amateur video problems, 18 year olds hardly seem capable of making that sort of decision.  A night of alcohol and meeting a smooth talking man, suddenly this woman’s body is on the internet for everyone to see for the low low price of whatever.  That is something her future husband might see, her father, brothers, and even her children might one day see.  Employers can stumble across that and so on.  In this age of information and mass distribution, such a decision can be catastrophic for someone.

As for the girl sending her own nude photos, she should be getting into trouble for that demonstration.  While I do not agree with a lot of the rules of the sex offender list, this girl should at least face some sort of legal punishment.  I do not personally feel she did anything wrong, but her actions could setup a dangerous precedent.  If she is able to send nude photos of herself to someone else, then what prevents another from doing so.  Then what if one of them distributes their nude photo to an older person.  Is that person in trouble for possessing an under aged photograph which was legally distributed to them?  A person cannot legally distribute contraband.  For instance, if I were to give you prescription medication then I am arrested for distribution and you are arrested for possession.  If I am legally allowed to give you the medication, but you cannot possess the medication then that makes little sense and is not ceasing the distribution. 

This also sets up a future argument of further distribution.  If the photograph was distributed legally to another party then that party is considered to be in possession of the photograph.  If they are legally allowed to receive the photograph, then there is not much of a leap to them being able to legally distribute the lawfully given photo.  Then what if the 16 year old approves her photo for public display?  For instance if she is caught on camera flashing at Mardi Gras and the camera man knows she is 16, can she give permission to have her photograph used on the site?  She knowing displayed herself for a camera, much as she did when taking photographs of herself.  She is basically distributing her photograph to someone else at this point, which is what she did when giving the picture to her boyfriend.  There is just a great deal of undermining that can occur here and its better to simply cut off the problems with a prosecution.

[vtboy]

So, you want to save this misguided 16 year old from the folly of sending her boyfriend sexually compromising photo of herself by stigmatizing her with a criminal conviction, placing her on a list with sexual predators who prey upon children in grammar school, and perhaps also exposing her to the wholesome influences of the state pen?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

No I want to prevent other 16 year old girls from being victimized due to a loop hole created by the poor judgment of one girl and the dim foresight.  The penalties are indeed harsh, but to prosecute her under lesser penalties would have established precedent once more.  This would simply lead to child pornography being punished less if the child is the one distributing the pornography.  I do not agree with the sex offender list as I stated above, but the simple fact is to establish a double standard could lead to other children (not just girls) being harmed or victimized.

[Nachtmahr]

Now everyone, remember it's okay to argue, but i don't want you all fighting. As for most of the things mentioned above, i'm glad that everyone participating have been taking their time to think their arguements through, and i still think this is quite an interesting topic.

As for Pumpkin Seeds above;

I sort of feel like you're contradicting yourself with the argument, stating that girls the age even at 18 and above aren't ready to be legally used for pornographic production, all things considered. You then go on to state below that you think the 16 year olg girl should get into legal trouble for sending nude photos of herself, but wouldn't she need as much protection as the 18 year olds who are perhaps drunk and do stupid things? I'm not really sure what you're trying to make of it. Basically i would think that this girl shouldn't really get into legal trouble, as that would just be taboo'ing the matter of youngsters and their bodies of sexuality. I mean, they would no longer be allowed to show their body off toa nyone and satisfy their curiousities, without possibly putting their social status at risk by doing something illegal, i just think hushing young peoples sexuality to death isn't the way to go around all of this.

[vtboy]

No I want to prevent other 16 year old girls from being victimized due to a loop hole created by the poor judgment of one girl and the dim foresight.  The penalties are indeed harsh, but to prosecute her under lesser penalties would have established precedent once more.  This would simply lead to child pornography being punished less if the child is the one distributing the pornography.  I do not agree with the sex offender list as I stated above, but the simple fact is to establish a double standard could lead to other children (not just girls) being harmed or victimized.

Your concerns about a "loop hole" mix the proverbial apples and oranges.

It is one thing for some dumb kid to send sexual images of himself or herself to a friend. It is quite another for that kid to disseminate images of other children. The former is youthful indiscretion. The latter is child pornography, regardless of the age of the disseminator. There is no reason why the law should not discriminate between the two different behaviors, attaching criminal penalties to the latter but not the former. Since no age-based defense to true child pornography would be recognized, the "precedent" or "loop hole" you fear would allow victimization of other children would not exist.

After all, the purpose of the child pornography laws is to protect children from sexual exploitation by others, not to compound self-inflicted injuries borne of a child's immature appreciation of the potential consequences of his or her sexual bravado. 

[Callie Del Noire]

Your concerns about a "loop hole" mix the proverbial apples and oranges.

It is one thing for some dumb kid to send sexual images of himself or herself to a friend. It is quite another for that kid to disseminate images of other children. The former is youthful indiscretion. The latter is child pornography, regardless of the age of the disseminator. There is no reason why the law should not discriminate between the two different behaviors, attaching criminal penalties to the latter but not the former. Since no age-based defense to true child pornography would be recognized, the "precedent" or "loop hole" you fear would allow victimization of other children would not exist.

After all, the purpose of the child pornography laws is to protect children from sexual exploitation by others, not to compound self-inflicted injuries borne of a child's immature appreciation of the potential consequences of his or her sexual bravado.

So you're saying it's okay for the orginator to be a stupid idiot but not the person receiving it? That because he or she might not think things through clearly, that they will FOREVER have to report their location, never be able to get a passport, hold down any job with even remote contact with children, and have to wear a scarlet letter (so to speak) for one moments stupidity?

Sorry.. not drinking the cool aid on that one.

[vtboy]

So you're saying it's okay for the orginator to be a stupid idiot but not the person receiving it? That because he or she might not think things through clearly, that they will FOREVER have to report their location, never be able to get a passport, hold down any job with even remote contact with children, and have to wear a scarlet letter (so to speak) for one moments stupidity?

Sorry.. not drinking the cool aid on that one.

No. What I said was this: (1) broadcasting pornographic images of oneself should not be a crime, regardless of the transmitter's age, but (2) broadcasting pornographic images of others under the age of consent should be a crime, regardless of the transmitter's age.

I don't know where you got the rest of this. For the record, though, I don't think the receipt of images voluntarily transmitted by their subject should be a crime.

I do, however, favor criminalization of all of the following: (1) the offering by an adult to a child of any inducement to provide sexual images; (2) the re-transmission of received sexual images of a child by an adult; and (3) the re-transmission without the subject's consent of received sexual images of a child by another child. The first and the second of these should, I hope, be uncontroversial. I realize that the third may in some cases visit criminal sanctions on kids for actions which may be  merely thoughtless. However, unlike the situation in which the transmitter is the subject of the image (the premise with which this discussion started): (1) re-transmission raises the specters of both exploitation and harassment of the subject of the image -- the very evils the law is meant to curtail; and (2) punishment of the re-transmitter would not irrationally pile on to the subject's existing, self-inflicted injuries.     

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Once more I place emphasis on the fact that a substance cannot be illegal to possess, but legal to distribute.  A child taking a photograph of themselves nude is in possession of an illegal item, even if that item is of themselves.  The possession of their own photograph is actually not illegal, but distributing that photograph to others is illegal because then there is legal child pornography in the public space.  At what point is the line crossed between the boy having possession of the photograph and him distributing the image.  For instance could the boyfriend show a video of him and the underage girl having sex at a party, but since she videotaped the act then the possession of the material is legal since it was then given to him lawfully?  Could the child’s father watch the video since he is merely watching something of his son’s or does that cross the line of distribution?  What if the son gave permission or loaned the tape to a friend?

Also I notice in your little rule scenario there is actually no stipulation against the underage person distributing the imagery to an adult.  There is a stipulation against an adult coercing a child into the act, which is quite vague for the law.  So for instance if a 16 year old girl is interviewing for early admission to college and the interviewer states that she might gain an edge with admission if a few photographs were sent.  There is no real evidence he made the claim and she has now sent them legally to the person.  What if a college guy is chatting up a sixteen year old girl that is 16, telling her that she could hang out with him and his friends if she provided some entertainment with a show via her phone.

Of course that also brings into question if the imagery is restricted to a photograph.  Could an underage person “put on a show” for an adult?  She/he is not even distributing the image, but rather showing someone in person.  Could a father have his daughter lawfully perform a strip show for a friend in their own home with no legal repercussions?  If the child is allowed to show photographs of themselves being nude, then what is the problem with that child showing themselves in person being nude?  All that is removed is the medium of the camera. 

A lot of tricky shifting of the definition of distribution of child pornography when really a good solution is to simply attach a juvenile status to the act and amend the punishment.  A few states, faced with these crimes, have made such alterations to their legal system.

[Serephino]

I honestly don't think nude pictures of a girl or guy under 18 should be illegal if shared between others who are also under 18.  Do I think such a thing is a bad idea?  Of course I do.  And yes, these girls need to be educated about what a bad idea this is.  But to put them through a traumatic trial and put them on a sex offender list, after they go through the humiliation of having their nude picture passed around?  No.  I think the humiliation is enough.  And if they don't care, well... *shrugs*.  Even if the first girl who gets exposed like that doesn't care, maybe it will give another girl who would care pause.  I mean, seriously, it's legal for two people under 18 to have sex with each other.  Why can't they look at each other naked?  That kind of happens anyway when you have sex. 

While I agree that young adults don't always have the best judgment, the law has decided they're adults.  They can vote, serve in the armed forces, make legal contracts, and get tattoos.  If they want to do porn, that's their business.  We can't put people in a bubble because they might do something they might regret later.  That's life.  Who doesn't have regrets from when they were young?  It's how we grow.   

[kylie]

     Philosophical explanation of why we see the paradox we do:  Power, at any level and by anyone, can operate by silencing people from expressing how things are actually done. 

     Also if you read Foucault's histories of bureaucracy, the Law in Western Europe (at least) has long existed as a means that nobles and states use to mark out areas of existing practice as new "problems" and targets for discipline.  It's not simply  that we have wrongs we seek to right, and that the law is supposed to make thought and practice consistent.  That is an idealistic notion.  I'm sympathetic to the ideal, but the practice has often been more that law creates a new "grey area" where those in power can selectively -- and not consistently -- intervene to periodically assert themselves.  (In other words, I'm inclined to say, the Law as we know it serves conservative more than liberal ideology.) 

Macro level: The Big powers that be go out and arrest, or (in foreign policy) perhaps, bomb people.  They do not say in the open where-how-why they do so, at least not with great consistency over time.  Even when most citizens and observers know it's happening, it's "classified" so that even news outlets and academics are not supposed to say much.  The actions may be obvious and frightening, but the silences and revisions of the explanation are larger still.

Micro level:  Everyone knows lots of teens have sex, many of age and some not.  However, adults largely reserve the right to discuss sex and its ultimate propriety for themselves.  Consistent with this, many youth may have sex but they may not represent the situation of themselves having sex.  (This is true, although I'm not quite convinced that older people handle those facts and ideas much better than younger people.) 

The resulting silences serve those in power 1) at least to maintain their relative power, 2) and possibly to disrupt a certain level of activity by those without power - but certainly not to curtail it all.  They serve the relatively powerless only in a lesser, limited sense -- because it's hard to prosecute without some evidence, and in this situation, reports about the events are a potential form of evidence.

     I tend to agree it would be better if there was more consistency between practice and the regulations that are supposedly serving "common" good.  However, that would mean an effective change in the organization, if not the institutional "spirit" of the Law on the whole.

   

[vtboy]

Once more I place emphasis on the fact that a substance cannot be illegal to possess, but legal to distribute.  A child taking a photograph of themselves nude is in possession of an illegal item, even if that item is of themselves.  The possession of their own photograph is actually not illegal, but distributing that photograph to others is illegal because then there is legal child pornography in the public space.  At what point is the line crossed between the boy having possession of the photograph and him distributing the image.  For instance could the boyfriend show a video of him and the underage girl having sex at a party, but since she videotaped the act then the possession of the material is legal since it was then given to him lawfully?  Could the child’s father watch the video since he is merely watching something of his son’s or does that cross the line of distribution?  What if the son gave permission or loaned the tape to a friend?

Also I notice in your little rule scenario there is actually no stipulation against the underage person distributing the imagery to an adult.  There is a stipulation against an adult coercing a child into the act, which is quite vague for the law.  So for instance if a 16 year old girl is interviewing for early admission to college and the interviewer states that she might gain an edge with admission if a few photographs were sent.  There is no real evidence he made the claim and she has now sent them legally to the person.  What if a college guy is chatting up a sixteen year old girl that is 16, telling her that she could hang out with him and his friends if she provided some entertainment with a show via her phone.

Of course that also brings into question if the imagery is restricted to a photograph.  Could an underage person “put on a show” for an adult?  She/he is not even distributing the image, but rather showing someone in person.  Could a father have his daughter lawfully perform a strip show for a friend in their own home with no legal repercussions?  If the child is allowed to show photographs of themselves being nude, then what is the problem with that child showing themselves in person being nude?  All that is removed is the medium of the camera. 

A lot of tricky shifting of the definition of distribution of child pornography when really a good solution is to simply attach a juvenile status to the act and amend the punishment.  A few states, faced with these crimes, have made such alterations to their legal system.

Oy vey, Pumpkin, you have quite a jumble of horrors here, none of which seems to provide the slightest justification for punishing their victim. Let me see if I can help untangle them for you. (For simplicity, let's continue with the hypothetical example of a 16 year old girl who has snapped a pic of herself plucking her magic twanger and sent it on to her boyfriend. Let's call the young lovers Romeo and Juliet.)

To begin, the question at issue is whether Juliet's conduct should be illegal. Your classifications of Juliet's act of possessing her pic as legal and distributing it as illegal assume your conclusions and thus do little to further the analysis.

Your illustrations of Romeo's sharing his prurient images of Juliet with his friends and father, and of Juliet's own father commanding her sexual performance for others, are certainly disturbing, but hardly compel Juliet's punishment. Yes, the only difference between a live nude show and nude photographs is the medium of the camera. But, what is your point? By all means, prosecute Juliet's dad for enlisting his daughter in such an enterprise, whether on film or in the flesh, but spare the poor girl. 

The evidentiary difficulties you presume would be attendant to prosecutions of the college interviewer and "college guy" who persuaded Juliet to share her pics are by no means unique to child pornography laws. Juries frequently sort out much thornier factual questions than whether these malefactors induced Juliet to send the pics, either by offering her something of value or threatening her. More to the point, if the element of inducement (which can be defined easily in objective terms, without ambiguity) were eliminated from the crime, the interviewer and "college guy" would face criminal prosecution even if, entirely unbidden, Juliet sent them her photos. I trust you are not seriously suggesting that such wholly passive receipt of the images should be cause for forcing these two to run the gauntlet of criminal prosecution. 

Were the purpose of child pornography laws to prohibit all sexual images of children -- i.e., to make them contraband -- as you seem to suppose, Juliet's exercise in creative self-photography and her Dance of the Seven Veils for dad might be cause for imposing criminal penalties on her. The object of these laws, however, is not to ban potentially arousing images of children, but instead to protect children from predators who would abuse them in the creation and dissemination of such matter. On this point, you might find elucidating Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, in which the Supreme Court struck down, as overbroad and offensive to the First Amendment, portions of the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996 (CPPA) which prohibited all sexual images of children (including virtual images), whether or not their production and distribution implicated such predation.   

Kiddie porn laws are only one species of wide-ranging legislation designed to protect children from all manner of harms. The category includes prohibitions against child labor, restrictions on the age at which children may marry, and statutory rape. One of the common features of these laws is that, despite the severe penalties they frequently impose on those who abuse and exploit children, they do not punish the children who are victimized by the proscribed conduct, even when they are willing participants in it. If Juliet had been bedded, for example, by her history teacher rather than by Romeo, the teacher would face criminal prosecution for statutory rape, but Juliet would not. (It may be that in certain states, Romeo's and Juliet's coupling would lead to the prosecution of both for statutory rape, since each would have engaged in sexual relations with a minor. My own state, New York, has taken a more enlightened approach to the issue, requiring that the statutory rapist be over 21. But, then, we New Yorkers tend to be a godless lot). If there is some compelling reason to brand as criminals those children whose immaturity manifests itself in racy photography, but not those children who engage in coitus, it eludes me.   

[Pumpkin Seeds]

My display of “horrors” as made reference to is not simply to highlight a punishment of the child but also to show where the changes proposed can lead to victimization.  Hence, my argument as to why making alterations to the nature of child pornography can lead to dangerous loop holes and problems that can be exploited legally.  As was pointed out, the child pornography laws are at their essence to prevent predation by adults on children.  My “horrors” make an illustration of how those alterations allow for such predators to operate legally in the system, hence making demonstration of how the proposals are against the spirit and letter of the law.

Furthermore my assumptions are more accurately called scenarios, not assumptions, whereby I show the immediately noticeable problems of the discussed changes.  I do not assume that “Romeo” will show his friends such pictures, but simply postulate a scenario where “Romeo” does so.  This scenario is not far-fetched since this situation has occurred before, especially when “Romeo” becomes scorned by “Juliet.”  Also, there is not an assumption about “Juliet” possessing and distributing pictures of herself as illegal because if that was an assumption then this thread would not be made.  My argument, being that her act should be illegal, will continue to highlight the importance of keeping the laws the same though not necessarily the punishment.  My point and contribution to the argument is then that the laws are in place not to punish immature behavior, but to prevent minor from being preyed upon by adults.

Ambiguity is the enemy of law.  Prosecutors have a far easier time when an act is obviously illegal than when the circumstances could make an act illegal.  For instance the student and teacher scenario.  Under current laws the teacher is arrested for possessing child pornography, there is no question of whether the pictures were given freely or under coercion to make the teacher’s act legal.  The predator in this case is taken into custody and prosecuted at the very least for possessing the pictures and prosecution can later sort through the facts to lay on additional charges.  The student may be prosecuted if she is believed to have freely distributed the pictures, as in distribution of child pornography, but the prosecution is then discerning whether she was coerced or not.  The predator is now behind bars hence protecting other potential victims.  The case of the “Seven Veils” is similar to this now where the prosecution is putting in jail the father and “friend” for viewing the act.  Predators are put into prison and the prosecution is instead left to discern if the act was performed willingly or not. 

I do not suggest that the college student or the teacher should be prosecuted if the pictures are simply sent to them without their suggestion of the pictures.  Just as I am sure you are not suggesting that entire laws should be rewritten because someone cannot find the delete button on their email.

Now toward a comparison of self-distributed child pornography and statutory rape.  The reason there is an immediate need to prosecute the adult in this case and not the child as in the other case is because an adult is involved.   The adult is supposed to know better despite the immature antics of a child attempting to seduce them, if that is the reported case.  An adult is not allowed the luxury of immaturity to rule and excuse their actions.  New York essentially said that under the age of 21, someone who is allowed to vote and join the military, is not mature enough to avoid having sex with a minor.  Were the photographs of the 16 year old in question sent to an adult, the adult would be prosecuted for receiving the pictures and not properly reporting and disposing of them.  Coercion of some sort is assumed in the case of the adult because the adult is supposed to know better.  The adult is the figure of authority and guidance, not the minor. 

The case of the girl with the photographs, her pictures was distributed to another minor.  There was not adult involvement in the act so she distributed the pictures of her own free will, meaning that she has to take responsibility for performing the act.  There was not adult involvement to claim that she was being manipulated, no figure with maturity implied to know better, so the law had to turn toward the person performing the act.  In this case the girl in the case took the pictures, distributed them and so is the instigator of the situation.  Laws currently are only equipped with the punishments used to address adults distributing child pornography, not children distributing pictures of themselves with cellphones and email.  Law is slow to change unfortunately.

The consensus that I see in this situation is that people have a problem with the punishment and not so much the prosecution.  As I pointed out, a few states and areas are beginning to make adjusts to the law in light of the current problem so that children that are distributing their own images of child pornography are tried under a juvenile court and not an adult one.  Better to alter the punishment then to suddenly rewrite the laws of what child pornography is, who can lawfully distribute child pornography and who can lawfully possess child pornography.

The idea that distribution of underage photographs is acceptable between minors is also a dangerous one.  For one, keep in mind that girls are not the only ones needing education in the dangers of sending their nude bodies to other people.  I do find some humor that girls have to be educated but boys are fine showing their genitals to the world.  Child pornography distribution as allowed by this under 18 ok ruling would allow a 17 year old to possess pictures of a 9 year old naked.  For the most part this conversation has been dealing with 16 year olds because of the case in particular and the ease of people to argue for a 16 year old being naked.  Do keep in mind that child pornography is 18 and under (typically) and that under part extends far beyond 16.

[vtboy]

Well, I've led this horse to water, but concede I cannot make it drink.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Please refrain of condescending remarks and/or tone on the politics and religion forum.  Also please refrain from posts that contribute nothing to the discussion but to “get in the last word” or make a snide remark to another poster.  Thank you.

[Chris Brady]

I think what he meant, Pumpkin, is that you're not seeing his point.

The issue is, a girl, like yourself, at the age of sixteen, whose in love with this one guy.  You love him so much that you decide to snap some sexy pictures of yourself.  Let's assume, you send it, and like a good boy, keeps them to himself.  Unfortunately, bad luck happens and you are the one discovered.

Congratulations, you, Pumpkin Seeds are now the equivalent of a child molester.  Go straight to Jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.  You've been caught, and you WILL be prosecuted for Child Pornography.  You WILL be on the Register.  People WILL know when you wish to move into a neighbourhood, they won't know, and don't fucking care WHY, you are on the Registry for Child Molesters, and they WILL try and make your life a living hell until you move away.  Good luck getting into that neighbourhood in the first place, because no one will EVER hire you.  Not even McDonald's will take you.  And don't expect to finish school, anyway.  Which means Social Assistance, but that's not going to happen either.  Criminals are not allowed on that.  So, no income, ever.  No feasible way to get a decent home.  Hell, I know the local shelters (in Canada, mind you, the U.S. might be more lenient, but I honestly doubt it) won't let a convicted child molester in their doors.  Remember, that's what you ARE.  The law makes no differentiation as to how you got on the Registry, just that you are.  So now, you can't even get a roof over your head.

So your future, such as it is, is pretty much either requiring you to go underground and change your name.  Or, more likely a life of prostitution to some pimp, or a back alley porn actress, who hopefully doesn't get involved in snuff films.  That's pretty much the three options you have left for your life.

And all because you decided to take a picture of your underage self, on your bed, on all fours, maybe a side shot, nothing more than a little bit of boob showing, and sent to the boy you loved.  Who probably is facing the same damn problem.

[Serephino]

I think Chris pretty much summed it up.  Teenagers do stupid crap.  They don't think anything bad will happen to them.  Why punish them for the rest of their lives for it?

Pumpkin, did you ever do anything as a teenager you regret?  Imagine that regret being public knowledge.  Every time you apply for a job, the potential employer knows about your shameful secret, and will judge you for it.  The only reason this is more of a problem now is advancement in technology.  When I was a teenager, if I wanted to send a naked picture to myself I needed a then expensive digital camera.  Now pretty much every cell phone has a camera and can get on the internet.

Once when my mom wasn't home my then boyfriend and some of his friends came over.  We got our hands on some vodka and got drunk.  I did a strip tease in front of all them.  Now I wish I hadn't, but then I was a drunk teenager.  If cell phone cameras had been common back then, I could be a sex offender because I was a drunken idiot. 

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Just a quick note here.  Hun, having grown men get a minor drunk and participate in a group striptease is not even near where this discussion is going.  I don't think there is anyone here that would consider that legal by any means.  Also, you would not be considered a sex offender if that was caught, the men in the room with you would be going to jail for a few reasons.  Contributing to the deliquency of a minor and a few sexual offenses against a minor would be among them.

[Callie Del Noire]

Just a quick note here.  Hun, having grown men get a minor drunk and participate in a group striptease is not even near where this discussion is going.  I don't think there is anyone here that would consider that legal by any means.  Also, you would not be considered a sex offender if that was caught, the men in the room with you would be going to jail for a few reasons.  Contributing to the deliquency of a minor and a few sexual offenses against a minor would be among them.

I don't think you're following what he said. It was his friends. And it was a stupid teenage act. (I can relate.. I was the 'picked on kid' a bit in highschool and I got friends who years later went.. 'Shit..we'd go to jail for the shit we did to you.. or kill a kid that did that to my kid'..and apologize). I got a 25th year reunion coming up and let me tell you.. if some of these guys hadn't sought me out to apologize.. I wouldn't be going (save to possibly dance on a few of the bully's graves.. darwin has worked hard. As it is.. I figure a good 1/5th to 1/6th of the males in my class are in jail or dead now)

That being said.. I KNOW there was shit I did to others that was stupid, lame or crass.. and I know girls in school who would have done stupid things with a cell phone if they had it (A few polaroids were taken by one girl who eventually moved to her grandmothers to hide from the embarrasment when her ex put them on the school's bulletin board.. a cork board on the front of the school)

To imagine that you can't get a passport, have crappy jobs, report your whereabouts every year and be harrassed by your neighbors and watch where you live.. 2 and 1/2 decades later..with NO END in sight for a stupid teenage mistake is wrong. Even murderers get parole and can move on with their life.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Ah, I do apologize.  I read that as the mother's boyfriend and his friends.  Will teach me to post from work.

This once more though seems to be three issues of problems with the punishment, not so much the crime.  I have stated in each of my posts that areas are changing the laws to reflect the juevinile nature of the perpetrators and ammending the sentences.  Among those ammended punishments is not being included on the sex offender registry.  I am not seeing much argument against the girl getting in trouble, but more against the punishment given to her.

[Callie Del Noire]

Ah, I do apologize.  I read that as the mother's boyfriend and his friends.  Will teach me to post from work.

This once more though seems to be three issues of problems with the punishment, not so much the crime.  I have stated in each of my posts that areas are changing the laws to reflect the juevinile nature of the perpetrators and ammending the sentences.  Among those ammended punishments is not being included on the sex offender registry.  I am not seeing much argument against the girl getting in trouble, but more against the punishment given to her.

That's the problem. Any attempt to reform the process, insert an appeal element or limit it to true sexual criminals that it was intended for has fallen flat on its face. Meanwhile kids, and adults, who shouldn't be on the register are on it and it destroys lives.

[Serephino]

Changing things now doesn't help the people who's lives were already destroyed.  It should never have happened in the first place.  'Sexting' was seen as a growing problem, and a DA decided to make an example out of some kids to try and get national attention.

The girl in question and her dad were on one of the Dr. Phil episodes I happened to catch.  (Don't judge me there isn't much on in the daytime unless you like soaps)  The girl sent a sexually explicit picture to her boyfriend.  He was a dick and sent it to all of his friends.  They sent it to their friends, and so on...  It's a digital form of what happened to the girl Callie went to school with pretty much.  Except her dad got all pissed off and protective and ran to the authorities.  Never mind it was his idiot daughter that took the photo and sent it in the first place...  The DA got creative.  She won because technically, yes, possessing the picture of a naked girl under 18 is child pornography.  She won on a technicality.  The girl was 15 or 16 (not a very young child that the laws were meant to protect) and the girlfriend of the dick who shared the picture.  I wouldn't be surprised if they'd had sex before that.  But she had been humiliated and wanted justice to be served.  That was the first case, and it snowballed. 

Like I said, the only thing that's changed in teenage behavior is the technology.  I had to get my boyfriend and a few other friends over to the house and strip in person because webcams hadn't been invented yet.  Who knows what kind of shit my classmates and myself would have gotten ourselves into had the technology existed.  I discovered text messages my Junior year and had some fun with those.       

[Chaosfox]

My display of “horrors” as made reference to is not simply to highlight a punishment of the child but also to show where the changes proposed can lead to victimization.  Hence, my argument as to why making alterations to the nature of child pornography can lead to dangerous loop holes and problems that can be exploited legally.  As was pointed out, the child pornography laws are at their essence to prevent predation by adults on children.  My “horrors” make an illustration of how those alterations allow for such predators to operate legally in the system, hence making demonstration of how the proposals are against the spirit and letter of the law.

Furthermore my assumptions are more accurately called scenarios, not assumptions, whereby I show the immediately noticeable problems of the discussed changes.  I do not assume that “Romeo” will show his friends such pictures, but simply postulate a scenario where “Romeo” does so.  This scenario is not far-fetched since this situation has occurred before, especially when “Romeo” becomes scorned by “Juliet.”  Also, there is not an assumption about “Juliet” possessing and distributing pictures of herself as illegal because if that was an assumption then this thread would not be made.  My argument, being that her act should be illegal, will continue to highlight the importance of keeping the laws the same though not necessarily the punishment.  My point and contribution to the argument is then that the laws are in place not to punish immature behavior, but to prevent minor from being preyed upon by adults.

Ambiguity is the enemy of law.  Prosecutors have a far easier time when an act is obviously illegal than when the circumstances could make an act illegal.  For instance the student and teacher scenario.  Under current laws the teacher is arrested for possessing child pornography, there is no question of whether the pictures were given freely or under coercion to make the teacher’s act legal.  The predator in this case is taken into custody and prosecuted at the very least for possessing the pictures and prosecution can later sort through the facts to lay on additional charges.  The student may be prosecuted if she is believed to have freely distributed the pictures, as in distribution of child pornography, but the prosecution is then discerning whether she was coerced or not.  The predator is now behind bars hence protecting other potential victims.  The case of the “Seven Veils” is similar to this now where the prosecution is putting in jail the father and “friend” for viewing the act.  Predators are put into prison and the prosecution is instead left to discern if the act was performed willingly or not. 

I do not suggest that the college student or the teacher should be prosecuted if the pictures are simply sent to them without their suggestion of the pictures.  Just as I am sure you are not suggesting that entire laws should be rewritten because someone cannot find the delete button on their email.

Now toward a comparison of self-distributed child pornography and statutory rape.  The reason there is an immediate need to prosecute the adult in this case and not the child as in the other case is because an adult is involved.   The adult is supposed to know better despite the immature antics of a child attempting to seduce them, if that is the reported case.  An adult is not allowed the luxury of immaturity to rule and excuse their actions.  New York essentially said that under the age of 21, someone who is allowed to vote and join the military, is not mature enough to avoid having sex with a minor.  Were the photographs of the 16 year old in question sent to an adult, the adult would be prosecuted for receiving the pictures and not properly reporting and disposing of them.  Coercion of some sort is assumed in the case of the adult because the adult is supposed to know better.  The adult is the figure of authority and guidance, not the minor. 

The case of the girl with the photographs, her pictures was distributed to another minor.  There was not adult involvement in the act so she distributed the pictures of her own free will, meaning that she has to take responsibility for performing the act.  There was not adult involvement to claim that she was being manipulated, no figure with maturity implied to know better, so the law had to turn toward the person performing the act.  In this case the girl in the case took the pictures, distributed them and so is the instigator of the situation.  Laws currently are only equipped with the punishments used to address adults distributing child pornography, not children distributing pictures of themselves with cellphones and email.  Law is slow to change unfortunately.

The consensus that I see in this situation is that people have a problem with the punishment and not so much the prosecution.  As I pointed out, a few states and areas are beginning to make adjusts to the law in light of the current problem so that children that are distributing their own images of child pornography are tried under a juvenile court and not an adult one.  Better to alter the punishment then to suddenly rewrite the laws of what child pornography is, who can lawfully distribute child pornography and who can lawfully possess child pornography.

The idea that distribution of underage photographs is acceptable between minors is also a dangerous one.  For one, keep in mind that girls are not the only ones needing education in the dangers of sending their nude bodies to other people.  I do find some humor that girls have to be educated but boys are fine showing their genitals to the world.  Child pornography distribution as allowed by this under 18 ok ruling would allow a 17 year old to possess pictures of a 9 year old naked.  For the most part this conversation has been dealing with 16 year olds because of the case in particular and the ease of people to argue for a 16 year old being naked.  Do keep in mind that child pornography is 18 and under (typically) and that under part extends far beyond 16.

Pumpkin I see where you are coming from and you are right in way change can create other loop holes and probably cause a whole other set of problems. But that is what change does (well for the most part in my experience it does) but that doesn't mean that a change wont help either Now On to what does bug me about the above quote Yes you are right child pornography is considered 18 and how ever lets say and this is just all hypothetical thinking of course but let us say that we change the definition to child porn from under 18 to under 16? Of course this opens up an whole new can of worms in itself but it solves the last part that you asked about at the end of your post that I have quoted. And In the process you can see that though one problem is solved another arises in the fact that people dot want there 16 year old participating in porn but it is now considered  a legal act so if the teen can get out or has a car there is no way that parent can stop them from participating at some point i they wanted to.  I guess all in all what i am saying make it legal or not you still have issues and problems that you have to deal with.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Any alteration in law is going to typically leave others without the benefit of the rule change.  Laws take time to be changed and altered, there will be unfortunate causalities.  That does not mean that hasty decisions and alterations have to be made.  Children break many rules and I have broken rules in the past, but nobody redefined vandalism so that I could avoid punishment for a Halloween prank.  Nobody redefined assault because young boys get into fights or car theft because kids like to joy ride.  The punishments were adjusted to suit the immature nature of children and preserve their futures from these mistakes.  Therefore, do not redefine what child pornography is and its distribution but rather adjust the punishment of the crime to preserve the futures of the children.

Chaosfox, you do realize that a 16 year old cannot legally sign a contract?  A parent has to give permission for them to work and they are not even able to own property.  So in order for a 16 year old to make pornography legally, their parents would have to sign off on the 16 year old doing such a thing.  At the age of sixteen an adult is able to access their bank account because the parent is the legal guardian of that child.  So is there comfort in knowing that the legal guardians of a 16 year old girl signed off on her performing sexual acts on video for money that they also have ready access to?  Maybe the girl or boy signed up because at that age they already knew pornography was the line of work for them, or perhaps there is some coercion going on within that family structure.

What I do find interesting at this point is the contradiction in statements regarding the distribution of photographs of this nature.  Images were painted originally of young women, showing their skin as an act of pride in their sexuality and a desire to show their love for another.  They would snap a picture of themselves naked and send that image to their boyfriend that would cherish the image.  Then of course people give real life commentary where the pictures end up being distributed and the “idiot” girl publically embarrassed.  Where a girl has to move in order to escape ridicule.  There are other people that have had to do the same things, typically though people do not call them “idiots” because they are being bullied.  This girl sent her nude photograph to her boyfriend that betrayed her trust and posted those images or distributed them to others.  She made a mistake as has been claimed so many times in this thread and suddenly she is the “idiot girl” with the overprotective father?

Also, how can you say that the child protection laws were not really meant to protect a 15 and 16 year old girl?   She is a child that is what the child protection laws are meant to protect, CHILDREN.  How does sleeping with him change the fact that he distributed her picture to others?  Because she has sex with a man then he has the right to flash her nude picture to whomever he chooses?  The DA did not have to be creative with this case, the boy was distributing pictures of a minor to people and they were distributing those pictures to others. 

[Chaosfox]

I will Concede to all your points but one a 16 year old does not need parental permission to work.  How ever there are restraints on how many hours a week they can work and what times they have to be of bye on school nights. Also There are circumstances where a teen has divorced there parents and the parents no longer have a say. Again my point was to show that change can cause problems me personally I am on a line I dont think that 16 year old should not be sending nude photos but that is because transmissions can be intercepted phones can be read from a distance with the use of certain technologies and hackers can intercept e-mails ( I just got done taking and Information System Security class) but at the same time I dont think we need to put a 16 year old on the Register as a sex offender should they be punished yes but not to the exit that you punish a perverted old man who is downloading child porn and doing things with little kids. I mean Do you give the same punishment to someone who assaulted a person that lived as you do to a person who kills someone?

[Callie Del Noire]

http://www.economist.com/node/14164614

Tell me how this was fair to the Whitaker family.

Or, for example, how an overwhelming need to pee results in a lifetime of shame and lost opportunities. I fail to see how a simple revision of the rules of entry or a simple evaluation process to scrub people from the list. 

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Callie, I have repeatedly stated that I do not approve of the sex registery list.  I have pointed out several times that I agree that the children in this case do not belong on that list.  If you want to debate the sex offender list, then I recommend another thread.  I have stated many times that the punishments for the minors involved in these cases should not include inclusion on the sex offender list and that many places where the laws are being revised do not include that stipulation for minors.  I do not understand where this continued empashsis on the sex offender list is coming from since I have many times stated that the punishment should be revised, not the laws themselves.  I believe in almost every post I have made that is the point.

[Serephino]

I don't think I ever said anything about a girl being proud of her sexuality.  Someone else did, but not me.  I'm the one that called the girl an idiot, and stand by that opinion.  It was a dumb thing to do.  I also said her boyfriend was a dick for sharing with his friends, but I don't think he deserves to be considered a sex offender for being an asshole.

Also, being punished for a Halloween prank, while kind over the top, doesn't affect you the rest of your life.  Juvenile records are sealed, unless of course you're a sex offender.  Being charged with assault doesn't leave you living under a bridge which you have to make sure is far enough away from schools and public parks.

[SilentScreams]

The reason why a 16 year old can consent yet cannot be in pornographic material is because of a conflict of laws. In the US there is no federal age of consent. Each state is allowed to set its own age of consent for the citizens living within its borders (if the age in your state is 18, for example, and you are 20 but your partner is 16 and you travel to a neighboring state where the age of consent is 14 you have broken the law). Now, with the example I added, albeit briefly, that illustrates the problem this case presents.

The federal government is responsible for, among too many other things, the regulation of interstate commerce since each state's nominal jurisdiction ends at its borders (yes, there are long arm statutes, and a host of other ways around but trying to keep it simple). The United States Code, or USC, is where all the federal laws may be found. Within the USC you will find that the federal government has set the age of consent to be featured in pornographic material is 18.

Now, if you are still reading, here we approach the long awaited end.

Alright, so each state can set their age of consent, most states set the age at 18, the same age at which you are considered legally an adult, can vote, and can star in porn. Several states have ages of consent lower then this. However, those states MUST follow the federal law because there is no conceivable, practical way in which pornography produced in one state can not be transported into another state, thus violating federal law.

I think that's more complicated then I wanted it to be....the reason this situation can happen is because the federal government has set the age of consent for pornographic material at 18. There is no way, regardless of if it is for monatery gain or not, something produced in one state can be 100% guaranteed to not be transported (traditional methods, internet, etc.) into another. As a result the age of consent is not linked to the age to appear in porn. The porn age is the age of legal adulthood in our federal system. The age of consent is set by each local state jurisdiction and may be younger then 18 but cannot be older then 18 because at 18 federal law steps in to settle the issue by declaring you a legal adult.

OK, wow, I'm just going to give up because I don't think that was any less complicated...~frowns~ oh well, hope it helps.

[Oniya]

Actually, that does clear up a lot.  d ;D b

[Pumpkin Seeds]

That does make alot of sense actually.

[Callie Del Noire]

Interstate commerce is a pivot point on that argument. Definitely covers why Porn has to be 18+

Still need to fix the admission/appeal process on the list though. Shame it would be easier to fix the porn age than that. :(

[SilentScreams]

Which admission/appeal process?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Callie has an obsession with the sex offender list. 

[SilentScreams]

Yeah, I don't think I'll be jumping into that particular hornets nest.

Although, I will say that it is entirely too easy to get added to that list and as our society moves more and more towards a police state where everyone is guilty of some such thing or other the reasons for being included do seem to be expanding at an exponential rate.

I read a case where a girl was added to the list for flashing a cop during at a traffic light during a college block party, for which they had a permit.

[Callie Del Noire]

Callie has an obsession with the sex offender list.

I have a friend that nearly wound up on it because of a lying spouse and I KNOW I've done things when I was a kid that were brushed off as stupid that would have gotten me on the list if I did them today.

I'm sorry if I think that kids doing stupid things and getting branded for life is wrong and that by pushing them onto it we're over burdening the law enforcement groups responsible for enforcing it. That allows offenders to get away with voilations. (I had one offender get caught living a block away from me in Maine and I can open a back window and with a good throw put something in the back side of a school and see two more from where I lived.)

The law is rapidly becoming a massive behemoth that is all but impossible to enforce in some jurisdictions. Without reform on the front end and an appeal process, you're going to get more and more 'stupid' acts that destroy lives forever.

[SilentScreams]

I agree with you. We are too quick to condemn. Lots of people do stupid things when young, but now you get in trouble for almost all of it. It's total nonsense. It's a drive to make everyone guilty of something, to put a skeleton in everyone's closet so no one stands up for and defends anyone else least their "secret" gets released. 

[Chris Brady]

This once more though seems to be three issues of problems with the punishment, not so much the crime.  I have stated in each of my posts that areas are changing the laws to reflect the juevinile nature of the perpetrators and ammending the sentences.  Among those ammended punishments is not being included on the sex offender registry.  I am not seeing much argument against the girl getting in trouble, but more against the punishment given to her.

Because her only crime is stupidity.  A crime I'm pretty sure we've all been guilty of at some point.  There was no malice, no intent to commit a crime.  She just wanted to show off to a boy she liked.  And now, she's in the same boat as a child molester.  For one single act, at sixteen.  Two years before being a legal adult.

Seriously, she shouldn't have been arrested/charged/convicted in the first place.  The punishment is the straw that broke the llama's back.

[SilentScreams]

If the jurisdiction she was convicted in uses a version of the model penal code and does not use (as most jurisdictions do not) the old common law definitions the crime has nothing to do with malice. The statute would probably be written something similar to "if a person with intent, or knowingly, or recklessly makes pornographic images, or videos, or materials, of a minor available to anyone else said person is guilty of...."
I'm sure that she fulfilled the statutory requirements or else they wouldn't have been able to charge, let alone prosecute her. She did take pictures of an underage girl (it doesn't matter it was herself) and she did, with intent, distribute those pictures (it doesn't matter to whom the pictures went.)
It's one thing to question the wisdom behind the prosecution, or question the justice of such an act but from a legal perspective the girl did satisfy the statutory definition of the crime.
Furthermore, even if a judge, or a prosecutor wanted to help her, with the advent of minimum sentencing standards in many jurisdictions, they may have been legally forbidden from doing so.

[Chris Brady]

I wasn't talking law (Which has nothing to do with Justice) I was talking about her intent.  And the problem is that the Law doesn't care about intent when doling out punishment.

[Oniya]

Actually, it can (at least here in the States).  If I hit someone with my car because I hit a patch of black ice (i.e., no intent to hit them), I would get a far different sentence than if I chased someone through a parking lot and ran over them, backed up, and ran over them again (i.e., clear and obvious intent).

[SilentScreams]

Her intent doesn't matter. She satisfies the intent requirement of the statute, which is what matters. She knowingly, or with intent, took naked pictures of someone under the age of consent for pornography and she knowingly, or with intent, distributed those pictures. What she thought doesn't matter. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that is how the system works.

Hitting a patch of black ice and hitting someone isn't a crime. It's a tort. It would be settled or go to trial in civil court. The only way that could become a crime is if the prosecution could prove 1) you knowingly, or with intent, or recklessly steered your car into the ice so that 2) you would knowingly, or with intent, or with recklessness strike a person with your car. Not gonna happen.
Intentionally running someone down  in the street or parking lot, or wherever is vehicular homicide, or vehicular manslaughter which are criminal offenses. I'm sure there are other charges that would also work but I don't know a whole lot about criminal law.

[Callie Del Noire]

Her intent doesn't matter. She satisfies the intent requirement of the statute, which is what matters. She knowingly, or with intent, took naked pictures of someone under the age of consent for pornography and she knowingly, or with intent, distributed those pictures. What she thought doesn't matter. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that is how the system works.

Hitting a patch of black ice and hitting someone isn't a crime. It's a tort. It would be settled or go to trial in civil court. The only way that could become a crime is if the prosecution could prove 1) you knowingly, or with intent, or recklessly steered your car into the ice so that 2) you would knowingly, or with intent, or with recklessness strike a person with your car. Not gonna happen.
Intentionally running someone down  in the street or parking lot, or wherever is vehicular homicide, or vehicular manslaughter which are criminal offenses. I'm sure there are other charges that would also work but I don't know a whole lot about criminal law.

So put something more in line with the action. A stupid action like this isn't supposed to ruin your life forever. Community service, possibly a little jail time to 'shock' them. Not branding them with an eternal Scarlet 'A' that won't let them ever participate with their children in a public setting, restrict them to a very limited (and constantly shrinking) choice of living places and jobs.

Once upon a time, common sense was used in rendering judgments. Tell me how ANYONE is served in ruining lives for what everyone admit is a mistake.

[SilentScreams]

I'm not saying anyone is served by this. I'm attempting to explain how the law works. I don't think anything should have happened to this girl. While I don't agree with it I can explain it because I know how the legal system works. Judges can't put something more in line with the action because foe many crimes the legislature sets minimum sentencing requirements that, as a matter of legislative intent, must be enforced regardless of the circumstances or the perpetrator.

[Caela]

My personal opinion is that the sex offender registry needs to be dismantled and thrown out. People get put on it for specious reasons and for things that should not be considered crimes. A friend of mine's fiance is on it for having consensual sex with his gf as a teenager. Our age of consent laws are a bit weird here. A legal adult cannot have sex with a minor but two minors can have sex if they are within a 2 year age difference with the lowest age of consent being 15 or 16. He and his gf were both 17 (minors) but he turned 18 about 2 months before she did making him a legal adult. They'd already been having sex and her parents knew it and didn't like him. Once he turned 18 they nailed him with a statutory rape suit which their daughter had no say in because she was a minor. It didn't matter that she had consented, or that they'd been having perfectly legal sex until he turned 18. He'd broken the letter of the law. The judge gave him the absolute minimum sentence he was allowed to but the guy is now on the sex offenders list for having consensual sex with his, then, girlfriend.

His life hasn't been entirely ruined but only because a lot of people don't check that thing when they meet him because they see his fiance and their daughter. They see a happy little family and a great dad and don't go digging. When they do though it has caused him problems, most often in getting jobs. That registry is nothing but a menace.

As for the original OP, part of the problem is that technology moves a lot faster than legalities can keep up with. I'm sure a lot of 16 year old have taken pictures of themselves for their boyfriends in the past, but there is a vast difference between a polaroid and cell phones ability to plaster those pictures across the web. Personally I would like to see the laws changed so that a girl sending a picture to her boyfriend didn't get prosecuted, while someone posting said pictures onto the web (mass distribution) did.

[SilentScreams]

I totally agree, the data base is absurd. There are literally hundreds of cases where people, most often males, were added to it for catching a public exposure charge along with a urinating in public charge. In many jurisdictions, espically cities, the police are encouraged to stack offenses to give the judge or the D.A. the most options possible in charging and prosecuting an offender. Unfortunately the results are almost always over zealous prosecution of offenses that, even ten years ago, only resulted in a ticket and maybe community service. I see it every day even though I don't deal with criminal matters. It's absurd.

Many of the things that can get you added to the sex offender data base are just silly. Exposing yourself in a bar, or at a private party, your neighbor sees you naked inside your home, your neighbor sees you topless sunbathing ON YOUR PROPERTY in a fenced in yard. The list is endless. It's a travesty.

[Chris Brady]

I totally agree, the data base is absurd. There are literally hundreds of cases where people, most often males, were added to it for catching a public exposure charge along with a urinating in public charge. In many jurisdictions, espically cities, the police are encouraged to stack offenses to give the judge or the D.A. the most options possible in charging and prosecuting an offender. Unfortunately the results are almost always over zealous prosecution of offenses that, even ten years ago, only resulted in a ticket and maybe community service. I see it every day even though I don't deal with criminal matters. It's absurd.

Many of the things that can get you added to the sex offender data base are just silly. Exposing yourself in a bar, or at a private party, your neighbor sees you naked inside your home, your neighbor sees you topless sunbathing ON YOUR PROPERTY in a fenced in yard. The list is endless. It's a travesty.

Let's not forget the man who was caught, naked, in his own kitchen, by a woman who was crossing his yard with her son.  He got charged, despite the fact that she was the one trespassing on his property.

[SilentScreams]

Trespassing is a funny thing, though. If the property owner knows that it is occurring and doesn't take positive steps to stop it from happening its viewed as tacit consent for the trespasser to continue trespassing. But yes, I agree that the whole situation is absurd. Catching a charge for being naked in your home, regardless if there was a trespasser or not is absolutely not what the criminal statute was written to prevent.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I don't think anyone has actually agreed with the sex offender list.  So still unsure what the discussion is over in that area.

[Callie Del Noire]

I don't think anyone has actually agreed with the sex offender list.  So still unsure what the discussion is over in that area.

I think several of us have agreed with the intent of it as a warning list or showing where the hazards might but. Most of us are a bit concerned with how it's adminstered and how deceptive it can be in some cases. And some true tragedies have occurred from it. Like the guys who were put on it for having sex with girls and they 'aged up' before said girls did. I know of one guy who that happened to in Maine, who was shot and killed by a vigilante who used the list to track offenders down.

Knowing that if it had been around when I was a 9 year old, instead of having the cops talk to my folks about something that I did stupidly then.. I'd never would have been able to leave the country, serve my country, live in five in the places I have since then (1000 yards of a school), never gotten ANY of the jobs I had, or been able to spend time with my niece and nephew as a baby sitter.

All the things I prized I'd never been able to do. Because I was stupid as a 9 year old kid.

[Nachtmahr]

Uhm, where are we in the discussion by now? Anyone who would care to give be a brief resumé?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The discussion is now...sex offender list  = bad.

[Iniquitous]

No, the sex offender list is not bad. How the law is being used to put people on it that do not honestly belong there is bad.

That’s where the discussion is now.

[Serephino]

The list was created with good intentions, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.  I heard a case of a guy that was put on it for having sex with a 16 year old girl at a college party when he was 19.  He assumed she was a college girl, and I think she even told him she was 18. 

Her parents somehow found out and called the authorities on him.  She even testified on his behalf, but you know, being a minor and all, she couldn't stop the prosecution.  Apparently, if a girl looks young enough, you must check her ID before you can have sex.  The girl/guy lying to you is no excuse.  As the legal adult, you're supposed to know better.

[Callie Del Noire]

The list was created with good intentions, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.  I heard a case of a guy that was put on it for having sex with a 16 year old girl at a college party when he was 19.  He assumed she was a college girl, and I think she even told him she was 18. 

Her parents somehow found out and called the authorities on him.  She even testified on his behalf, but you know, being a minor and all, she couldn't stop the prosecution.  Apparently, if a girl looks young enough, you must check her ID before you can have sex.  The girl/guy lying to you is no excuse.  As the legal adult, you're supposed to know better.

I've been there.. luckily she was honest with me. BIG problem in Rota when I was based there.. the girls DON'T look underage. I was in a bar with 3 of my co-workers. We'd gotten off early (night shift) and were chatting up some girls.. most of them looked.. early to mid 20s, they were drinking with us.. the girl I was macking on goes 'I have to go.. I got school in the morning'.. I go 'you go to university?" 'No..it's what you call high school.' Turns out she was like 16.. I did better than one of my buds.. he was hitting on a 14 year old.

Needless to say we used to joke after that we we needed to card the girls in bars or they had to tattoo their age on their wrists or something.

[Nachtmahr]

In all honesty, then would a different kind of sec offenders list not actually be ideal? All things considered, if you made a sex offenders list for the hardcore adult pedophile madmen, and then made another 'Sex-offenders list light'? This would basically then work by either inidividuals under the age fo 18 or 21 or whatever, depending on where you live, would be put on this list, unless their offences were considered too bad to be accepted? That way a 15-16 year old girl sendign naked pictures to her 19-18 years old boyfriend would be anonymously put there to be monitored slightly later in life, like, say that a boy aged 16 gets naked pictures of multiple young girls and then starts posting them on the internet, he would be moved tot he real list, while a boy at the same age who only has a few pictures of his girl as a keepsake with her permission and concent to keep them on his cell, he would be put on the anonymous list, to be removed again if he doesn't make any 'real' offences before he becomes an adult?

Or if you have a young girls concent, and are caught and dragged off to court, perhaps then she could sign a 'concent-form' if these pictures have not been shared to any third party? So, if the boy, aged 18-22 keeps he pictures of her naked, and are accused of anything, she can sign a form in court saying that she really doesn't mind, and as long as he keeps them to himself and they don't end up on the internet he is not considered an offender? And she wouldn't be either ofcourse. That way, they wouldn't be allowed to produce pornography with the intent of distributing it, but they could snap a few shots of themselves for their loved ones without too much trouble.

At any rate, i guess there will never be a real functioning solution to this..  It's scary isn't it? The kids are getting older faster and faster, puberty has moved down to what now.. 8-10? atleast it has in some places.. I think the next generation will be facing several severe issues, considering i remember how the people i knew were during puberty.

[SilentScreams]

The real, functioning solution to this is for the legislators to stop passing incredibly complex, mandatory sentencing laws and give back to the judge's the discretion that they used to be able to exercise in many of these cases. Unfortunately, the way the media sells the sex offender list to the uneducated masses is in the terms of good v. evil and you have all manner of bizarre political bedfellows ranging from overly concerned mothers wishing the world was covered in pillows to protect their children to religious zealots who wish premarital sex was illegal. Conversely, we wouldn't need this list is rape was still a capital offense, as it used to be, (strange fact, more US soldiers were executed for rape during WWII then every other capital offense in the UCMJ combined) or if pedophiles got longer sentences. Most jurisdictions consider a life sentence to be 25 years. However, I know that Alaska has turned that notion upside down. Instead of getting "life" in prison offenders are sentenced to a set number of years. For things like murder and pedophilia the minimum is set by the legislature but the judge has the discretion to essentially up the sentence to whatever he wants. So there was one case where a man hacked his fiance and her father to death with a machete. The judge gave him 497 years. There was another case where a pedophile got the maximum 50 year sentence for each of his eight counts. The sentences were "stacked" so he has to complete one before the clock starts ticking for the next, thus giving him 400 years in prison. The way parole works in Alaska is you are eligible for parole after two/thirds of your sentence is complete. Under their sentencing rules, and the discretion the judges have in upping the length of the sentence, these people will die of old age at least a century before their first scheduled parole hearing.

[Iniquitous]

However, I know that Alaska has turned that notion upside down. Instead of getting "life" in prison offenders are sentenced to a set number of years. For things like murder and pedophilia the minimum is set by the legislature but the judge has the discretion to essentially up the sentence to whatever he wants. So there was one case where a man hacked his fiance and her father to death with a machete. The judge gave him 497 years. There was another case where a pedophile got the maximum 50 year sentence for each of his eight counts. The sentences were "stacked" so he has to complete one before the clock starts ticking for the next, thus giving him 400 years in prison. The way parole works in Alaska is you are eligible for parole after two/thirds of your sentence is complete. Under their sentencing rules, and the discretion the judges have in upping the length of the sentence, these people will die of old age at least a century before their first scheduled parole hearing.

I will admit there is a part of me that likes that system. It is the part of me that says get them away from the general populace so that we are safe. Of course, the other part of me that says paying for them to live a (better than I have) life is a waste of money. Of course, this all goes towards the discussion of our penal system - rehabilitative or part of the problem. Not going to open that can of worms in this thread.

[SilentScreams]

Their life isn't better. I've done some work in prisons and it's a horrible existence. Things like cable TV, video games, and weight rooms, which are so often used by outsiders to criticize the system, are needed and are used as societal controls. Cable TV and a video game are worth a lot when you have nothing and the threat of having those things taken away causes people to behave. If you have nothing there is no reason for you to behave. But, without opening the can of worms, rehabilitation is a joke. Prisons are good at one thing and one thing only. They are university for criminals. Take someone on a two year stint for selling drugs, put him in with professional criminals, when he gets out his network is expanded and he has learned the skills he needs to be a better criminal.

Interestingly, Alaska doesn't have capital punishment and will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep a prisoner alive for as long as is scientifically possible. Their rational for sending prisoners to advanced cancer treatments and for experimental, life saving surgeries is that the criminal owes a debt and nothing less then an act of God or murder, or death from old age is giong to get them out of prison.

[Nachtmahr]

Uhm, well, as it happens, in my country a man who hacks his wife and her father with a machete is given the maximum 'life-sentence' which is 16 years.. Quite a difference from the way the americans do things at least. I think the discussion about whether rehabilitation is a joke or not isn't really fit for this thread, nor are death penalties and such. Theres a lot of proof that pedophilia can actually be cured, and lots fo evidence that it can't, but still it's worth a shot in my world, otherwise, (I think SilentScreams pointed out something about religious zealots) we're going to live some kind of eye-for-an-eye society. While i agree that a serial killer does not necessarily deserve a second chance, there are cases of murder and such which i can get behind and support.

But anyway, we're going off the topic now people, we aren't going on about murderers or pedophiles in this topic.