It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

15 Year Old Girl Charged as Sex Offender

page: 15
13
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
Do you remember that one teacher that fell in love with that 15yr old student and after she got out of jail I think they got married or something?
It just drives me nuts when society gets on their high horse and decides that they will make one the victim and the other the perp. and despite the fact that they are in love doesn't matter, because society knows better than they do and they will decide their fate. hypocrisy at its destructive best!
Does somebody want to post representing society and tell this guy that he was a victim at 14? Do you want to tell him that he is damaged and just doesn't realize it?


Yet you would do the same if it had been a male teacher and a female student, is that correct?




posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by asmeone2
 

she is not exactly facing ten years just ten years on sex offender registry yes this is harsh being she is a minor herself the law here in indiana she would never have got in trouble the way it reads i believe


WTF????? How do you think being a registered sex offender is something that will just go away in ten years? If it happens her life is over unless she plans on working for minimum wage the rest of her life.
Because any other more meaningful employment application is going to ask. Oh, yeah, by the way, I was a registered sex offender when I was 15 years old! I would love to defend her and make sure that none of this ever gets to court nor on any permanent sealed or unsealed record. (sealed juvenile records are a myth by the way) apply for any sensitive governement job or even just the BAR.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
EDIT: I wouldn't hold your breath to hear men express shame at having been with an older woman on a public forum. One of the things my friends have expressed is shame and confusion that what they were supposed to take as a badge of man hood made them feel dirty and used. And I'm not talking about 13-year old boys with 19-year-old girls; I'm talking about women in positions of authority with boys under 16.

[edit on 10/16/08 by americandingbat]


Good edit, and I would like to quote on that.

By and large men (males) cope with sex very differently to women, if, say, an older woman took advantage then sure there is shame and doubt sometimes... But an overriding simple fact is that a male has a certain degree of control that a woman does not - how can I put it?
it simply ain't full sex without something that comes naturally... and that something can go away as quick as it appears!


For females it can be totally different, even for males also - difficult topic, don't want to derail the thread, just thought I throw a little small change into the pond.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Now_Then
 


True, but if you think a thirty-year-old woman can't cause that which needs to happen to happen in a 15- or 16- year old boy, think again.

Not to mention, imagine the shame if it then does go away!?



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
Do you remember that one teacher that fell in love with that 15yr old student and after she got out of jail I think they got married or something?
It just drives me nuts when society gets on their high horse and decides that they will make one the victim and the other the perp. and despite the fact that they are in love doesn't matter, because society knows better than they do and they will decide their fate. hypocrisy at its destructive best!
Does somebody want to post representing society and tell this guy that he was a victim at 14? Do you want to tell him that he is damaged and just doesn't realize it?


Yet you would do the same if it had been a male teacher and a female student, is that correct?


------------------------------------------------

Do you mean that I spent all that effort to say it is "very very very" different when it comes to .....oh yeah, I said boy to man.....ok you off the hook for that.

Alright let me make it also clear that it is very very very different when it comes to a young girl and an older man......hmmmmm, I do think I said that in one of my rants. But just in case....NO NO NO...it is not the same
it isn't hypocritical either it just IS because it isn't a......I DID COVER THIS!
go back and read.....no don't bother they were too long for even me to go back and read....but I did make it clear that a male teacher and a female student is NOT the same thing at all.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Yes, you made it very clear that you think it's different when it comes to a male teacher and a female student.

If you go back and read my rants, you will note that I would have gladly had sex with my teacher when I was fifteen. It was in fact one of my favorite erm ... evening fantasies.

I understand that you as the father of five daughters may not want to hear that. But girls like sex too.

Look, we're pretty far off topic for this thread. If you by chance have a pdf of your research that you'd like to send me by u2u to show me that I'm wrong about the possibility of girls not being traumatized or the possibility of boys being traumatized, go for it.

In the meantime, I think I'll stick to the feeling that people in positions of authority should never have sex with teenagers.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician
Being able to see both ends of reasoning allows one to better locate the center.


Okay fair enough.

Just so I know I can personally believe you, what are both ends on this argument?

And then, if you will, what is your logic behind why one end is correct and the other end is incorrect.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa

You almost got away with your argument but you said "The intent to create the child porn was there,..." No it wasn't. The intent to take a naked picture of herself and share it with someone was.


Respectfully, that sounds like ultimately same thing to me.

As an example, it seems to be that the intent to stab someone in the heart with a knife does not necessarily denote the desire for murder, but it does denote intent under the law (i.e. the determination or resolve to do a certain thing, or the state of mind with which something is done) because the action was consciously performed, and an outcome can be expected if you are not insane, in a fit of rage, etc... if the outcome results in death, than you have murdered whether you realize it or not- and you might have some leeway if you can prove you were insane at the time. We learn very young that the heart beats for a reason...

Likewise, setting your house on fire while your wife is sleeping won't get you out of arson or murder charges unless you can come up with an insanity plea - and even then, good luck.

Now, her intent was to take the picture, but what was her motive? To show her boyfriend her nude body... but why? For art? doubtful. Does this girl have a history of artful tendencies? We don't know this information. Was it for arousal? likely, considering the situation.

She is a "child" (I don't particularly believe the law here), taking a nude picture of herself. By definition she had created child pornography regardless of if she knew the law or not, or knew if that is what she was doing based in the law in particular. If she was "out of mind" than perhaps she did not created child pornography. I suppose it's hard to prove either way, which is why it must be indirectly inferred... again, just because you don't know you are murdering someone doesn't mean you aren't - again, unless you are insane.

She was, I think, obviously creating the concept of "child pornography" (i.e. real child pornography) in her actions - regardless of if she "knew" or not. Just because she didn't see the speed sign doesn't mean she wasn't going too fast.

Her intent and motive seem to match the desired results (if the case) - to create the picture, and arouse her boyfriend by displaying sexually explicit conduct.

The U.S Code has a section about this - and it is pretty, very broad.




(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—

(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

(9) “identifiable minor”—

(A) means a person—

(I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or

(II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and

(ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and
(B) shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor.

(10) “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted; and

(11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.

www4.law.cornell.edu...


Keep in mind, I do not particularly believe that she wanted to create child porn under law. I'm just saying that I think the law is telling that she did. The problem here though is that, by law, she did create the child porn by depicting herself in such a way, and this presents a problem - because it's very unfair to her and her boyfriend in this isolated incident, I think.

I don't think this will ever receive the attention of a Jury, and that may pose a problem because as others have pointed out... this is a very, very gray area.

Then again, does it even deserve a Jury, or is it better left as black and white for the good of the potential victims and societal repercussions?

But, I'm on ATS... go figure.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Does anyone else notice that those most vehemently opposed to this girls actions, the ones who want the whole world to come down on her ., are also the ones who discuss her actions in the most lurid detail?

It reminds me of some psychologist I heard one time, (and unfortunately I cannot remember his name) that said that some who are secretly obsessed with porn or other taboo things tend to be the same ones who launch campaigns against it.

He said it is because they both feel it is wrong on some level, but cannot shake their own obsession, and so they channel that obsession it into a "war against it," so that they can satisfy their own obsession with whatever the "taboo" thing is, by immersing themselves in thoughts of it, while allowing themselves the illusion of moral superiority.

Not saying that is what is going on here, but it is interesting that so many who are so opposed to what she did are also the ones who are apparently giving the specifics of it an awful lot of thought.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by logician magician
Being able to see both ends of reasoning allows one to better locate the center.


Okay fair enough.

Just so I know I can personally believe you, what are both ends on this argument?

And then, if you will, what is your logic behind why one end is correct and the other end is incorrect.


Well, I don't believe one end is correct. I believe that utilizing the dialectic method that the center of reason can most likely be found and that we can reconcile our differences. I'm only introducing extreme differences because the other side is unbalanced. There are probably only two people arguing for one side, while the entire rest of the thread is arguing for the other.

I was only trying to balance out the far left end of the spectrum (i.e. nothing should happen to her) with my own far right end that she should be served to the letter of the law. This type of thing doesn't go well when people resort to emotional and insulting or implicating outbursts. I tend to think that we should discard what is useless and keep what is useful - but we can never do this if we ignore the possibilities.

I don't particularly believe that this young girl should have the book thrown at her - nor do I believe that she should be let off completely clean because her actions have consequences.

I'm not seeing too many people in this thread noting that her actions do have them.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Not saying that is what is going on here, but it is interesting that so many who are so opposed to what she did are also the ones who are apparently giving the specifics of it an awful lot of thought.


It seems to be that the people who are citing and asking for specifics are using critical thinking and reasoning to resolve why exactly other people have adopted the stance they have.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SantaClaus
 

The girl took pictures of herself not of another girl. so that in its self is not a sex offender act. Sending it to other teens is a bit hoe bagish, but making this girl register as a sex offender is just stupid. Anywho what else to we expect when young girls see all these Paris, Brittney, and Lindsey hoe bags? By the way can I say Hoe bag?



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


I would have just read the article, and then perhaps done a search for other articles.

The article states,


NEWARK -- A 15-year-old girl is accused of distributing nude photos of herself to other minors, and one state legislator is questioning whether she should be labeled a sex offender.


To me, that is pretty much self explanatory. They were of her. And nude. And distributed. To other minors.

What more do we really need to know?



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   
So if she's convicted, she'll be "classed as a producer of child pornography." Wow. I don't think her sending naked pictures of herself should be so grave of a crime as to have this label put on her. Seems like the court is taking the law too literally.



No word on what compensation she (as the victim of the crime) will be able to get from herself (as the perp).


Is this a joke?

[edit on 10/16/2008 by Truth07]



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   
I think this case is just another example of how our laws governing sex create more harm than good. An adult having sexual relations with a child is not acceptable, but a teenager is not a child, nor an adult.

Teenagers have a right to have sex. Humans are biologically designed to start having sex when they are teenagers, so why not? The not emotionally ready for it argument is meaningless, many adults are not emotionally ready for sex. Heck, until you have sex the first time, most people are not emotionally ready for it. Even the most responsible people tend to go ga ga when they get it for the first time. Getting over this major hurdle in life is probably best dealt with as a teenager. Sex is a normal, healthy activity that too many people are far too obsessed over. Heck, more teenagers wind up getting seriously hurt from sports activities or driving in cars than get seriously hurt from experimenting with sex.

Adults should not be allowed to pursue teenagers under the age of 18 for sexual pleasure. There should be laws to protect teenagers from sexual predators, but there are plenty of teenagers who lust after adults, and we have gone far too radical in going after adults who have allowed themselves to be seduced by teens. Rather than concentrating on the real sexual predators, we are clogging up our legal systems with victimless crimes. It is great for the lawyers who profit from this stuff, but it is bad for our society.

We put far too many people in jail in our society. The pendelum has swung too far.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by logician magician
 


I would have just read the article, and then perhaps done a search for other articles.

The article states,


NEWARK -- A 15-year-old girl is accused of distributing nude photos of herself to other minors, and one state legislator is questioning whether she should be labeled a sex offender.


To me, that is pretty much self explanatory. They were of her. And nude. And distributed. To other minors.

What more do we really need to know?



You appear to be a product of the rote learning system. You've only cited facts and have made no attempt to think at all.

Let me guess... you went to school in North America?



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   
I'm not going to defend the girl for what she did but i personally think being charged for what she did, a teenager sending naked pics to her friends (Assuming that is the case) is a bit over the top.

But there is a lot to say about that, which has been said before, but what my question is why is it these days everything ends up in court/legal routes taken?
It's seems like everyone wants to get into legal battles over the silliest things.

If something like this happened 15 years ago, and nude photos of a girl went around a school, the girl would be taken to the principles office and have a talk with her and the parents, why is this taken further then it should be? The same with kids fighting, racial slurs and things of that nature. But all I'm hearing is kids getting charged for making "Gun shapes" with their fingers, or saying some racial comment in the play ground.

Maybe I'm missing something?


Originally posted by Alexander_Supertramp
....part of the article that bothered me:


Licking County Assistant Prosecutor Erin Welch said Monday the investigation into the incident remains open, including exploring whether charges will be filed against the minors who received the photos.


How can the kids who recieved the photos get in trouble? Unless they asked for the pictures or kept them on their phones, I don't see why they should get in trouble. I have things sent to my cell phone all the time that I don't want there; granted, they are all legal, but I don't choose what comes to my phone.


Don't know if this has been answered....I am assuming they mean the minors who sent the pictures to other minors. If they received the picture and did nothing then they shouldn't get charged, but if they sent it on, then they themselves are distributing "Child Porn".



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Yes you did get that right. Yes, her phone should be taken away, for a couple months, and some instructional talks, books, family planning clinic. All things a parent does, not the judicial system. No, she doesn't councelling or any cop showing up at the door even to frighten her. She's just a kid, misbehaving, but still normal. The laws being used are in place to protect children from adults, not to stop their misbehaving. What's being done is a sadistic loophole that some fascist creep is using to try and put down women. You understood correct. And by saying this, in no way as a parent of teenagers myself, am I condoning her behavior. However, that being said, I don't intend to raise my children according to thousands of years old patriarchal systems either.

[edit on 17-10-2008 by mystiq]



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I haven't read everyone's posts but I'm sorry this is stupid.

Teens are growing up. They have puberty and desires, they sometimes do stuff like this. Don't tell me no one here hasn't been with the girl next door when they were a teen? A lot of us should be in jail if we were to enforce such a law where teens can't have sex.

She sent it to other minors. It's no more than her showing her naked body to other people her age. It happens.

I'm not necessarily saying that having sex as a teen is the right thing or anything, but let's get real here. Teens have been sneaking around for years having sex.

Sorry to offend anyones sensitive ears.

To me, this just isn't a criminal act. Again, I'm not telling kids to go out and doink each other, because, there are consequences to your actions. Just try and wait for the right person ok. I think it would be better to hold off on the sex until when you have your life figured out, and have matured more.

Maybe mom needs to sit down with her daughter or something, and have a talk. Try to help guide her into doing the right things with her life. You know, set down some rules to go by. Educate her.

Troy



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician


Let me guess... you went to school in North America?


More or less, it was an American state, though not on the North American continent. Why? In other countries do they teach you that discussing facts not in evidence, which here we call speculation is a good way to decide a case?




top topics



 
13
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join