While these pics are originally for private use, do you honestly think they remain so?
So we punish teenagers because someone else may potentially abuse their photos.
While these pics are originally for private use, do you honestly think they remain so?
So we punish teenagers because someone else may potentially abuse their photos.
We aren't talking about kids who get their photo's of them tanning in a bikini stolen or hacked or something. We are talking about "kiddie porn". How can we make an exception simply because the "kiddie porn" was produced and distributed by the underage kid who is in the pictures.
Under the law, if they "produce" them, and they end up being "public" and they are "children" they are responsible for their distribution of child pornography. Don't like it. Tough.
Your actions have consequences. You must take responsibility for them.
Reminds me of a story my dad told me. When he was in High School they just built the new football stadium and he and a friend decided it would be cool to ride his friends moped around the track outside the football field a couple of times. Come Monday the big talk was that someone had damaged the track by driving around it. He and his friend turned themselves in only to find out that the track had been damaged by a car and had two shallow ruts in it. Even though they didn't cause the damage they still got the punishment. Their parents didn't whine, complain, or treaten to sue the school, they likely punished them again when they got home. The result was two responsible, successful people that learned a valuable lesson.
My grave concern is if we begin to make exeptions for underage kids producing their own "kiddie porn", when do parents who exploit their own kids in a likewise fashion start demanding an exception because they are the parents and "know best for their kids"?
You tell me why they do this. As a layperson, I have more trouble from the crap I hear prosecutors pulling than I do from defense attorneys.
Is it as common as it seems to throw common sense out the window as long as they think they can win or get a plea?
We aren't talking about kids who get their photo's of them tanning in a bikini stolen or hacked or something. We are talking about "kiddie porn". How can we make an exception simply because the "kiddie porn" was produced and distributed by the underage kid who is in the pictures.
Under the law, if they "produce" them, and they end up being "public" and they are "children" they are responsible for their distribution of child pornography. Don't like it. Tough.
Your actions have consequences. You must take responsibility for them.
Reminds me of a story my dad told me. When he was in High School they just built the new football stadium and he and a friend decided it would be cool to ride his friends moped around the track outside the football field a couple of times. Come Monday the big talk was that someone had damaged the track by driving around it. He and his friend turned themselves in only to find out that the track had been damaged by a car and had two shallow ruts in it. Even though they didn't cause the damage they still got the punishment. Their parents didn't whine, complain, or treaten to sue the school, they likely punished them again when they got home. The result was two responsible, successful people that learned a valuable lesson.
My grave concern is if we begin to make exeptions for underage kids producing their own "kiddie porn", when do parents who exploit their own kids in a likewise fashion start demanding an exception because they are the parents and "know best for their kids"?
Reminds me of a story my dad told me. When he was in High School they just built the new football stadium and he and a friend decided it would be cool to ride his friends moped around the track outside the football field a couple of times. Come Monday the big talk was that someone had damaged the track by driving around it. He and his friend turned themselves in only to find out that the track had been damaged by a car and had two shallow ruts in it. Even though they didn't cause the damage they still got the punishment. Their parents didn't whine, complain, or treaten to sue the school, they likely punished them again when they got home. The result was two responsible, successful people that learned a valuable lesson.
Good story. But it doesn't really remind me of this situation at all.
This situation reminds me of every kid who brings a Swiss Army knife to school, and the school dispatches the SWAT team to secure the school and haul the kid away. Insane, irrational overreaction. Police intervening when the school or the parents could have easily handled the situation.
Snip
Things are not usually as cut and dried as they are presented in the media or on an internet forum. It is easy to describe a simple situation and try to make someone look like an unreasonable idiot by leaving out details, such as prior arrests or probation for other crimes.
Two things: First, the Swiss Army knife thing happens in Zero Tolerance schools. Most schools handle that kind of thing differently. Many times over the years we've found pocket knives on kids and, as long as there's no evidence of threats or conflict, we turn them over to the parents and have typically ended it there. However, many of the cases you've read about in the media didn't tell the whole story, leaving out details like the kid threatening to fight another kid in the days preceeding the incident. I know first hand of several cases like that. As for Zero Tolerance, it is a dumb idea, but in each case, the school board, who is elected by the community, has decided that is what they want. If you don't like Zero Tolerance, and I don't, then move somewhere that doesn't have it, or expose it for what it is to the school board--a dumb idea that doesn't let anyone use their brains or common sense.
As for the topic of this thread, I'm calling BS. If this kid or both kids have to register as sex offenders, then post the link or give the names so we can check it. I'm going to be shocked if the prosecutor requires that. In similar cases I've experienced, none of the kids involved had to register as a sex offender, because the prosecutors used common sense. I'll be happy to eat crow if I'm wrong and someone can show us the link. If they have to register, then shame on the prosecutor for handling it that way. However, if the kid was on probation for marijuana, then it serves him right. My guess would be that there is MUCH more to this kid's story if they throw the book at him, and none of us will never know it. Things are not usually as cut and dried as they are presented in the media or on an internet forum. It is easy to describe a simple situation and try to make someone look like an unreasonable idiot by leaving out details, such as prior arrests or probation for other crimes.
Since this seems to be a matter of perspective lets take some time to add some here.
1. If your daughter was the girl in the above story, and the police told you that the ex-boyfriend wasn't being punished how would that go over for you? Don't BS me, I don't have my waders on. I'm guessing not well...not well at all.
Just great if my daughter wasn't being charged with a felony sex crime as a producer, which is what you're arguing for. That's insane.
That takes the discretion of a prosecutor. He can't not charge her with something because technically what she did was against the law. Does he argue for a day of community service? The fact remains she must be charged with something.