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: 20
13
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mystiq
 


your confusing baby pictures with pictures with that were created for the specific intent to be pornographic.

Obviously your parents didn't take your baby pictures for the specific purpose of them being pornographic now did they?

This girl did. The reason she took these photos was to arouse her bf. This is pornography. and because she is a minor at the time the photos were taken this makes it child pornography. If she was 18 + when the photos were taken they would just be pornography.

Its not hard people

I don't understand why this should be condoned, why people in this thread think that it's ok. and why she shouldn't face some sort of charge for lewd conduct.

READ THIS---> Granted, maybe sex offender is too harsh of a crime, but obviously she has done something wrong, should be prosecuted for this crime, and should have some sort of punishment besides a simple slap on the wrist or taking her phone away.

[edit on 10/17/2008 by whatukno]




posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
And in the context of the case itself, how can the 15 year old be a minor as the victim of child pornography, (it was a picture of a minor that is the crux of this case) and also be guilty as the perpetrator of the crime? If the 15 year old is an adult in the eyes of the law by sending the picture, then she can't also be a minor in relation to the picture itself. By the same token, the juveniles who received this picture cannot be given adult status for the cause of charging them, and yet at the same time be seen as children receiving porn.

With the idea of justice, as opposed to law, then all involved need to be seen as adults, in which case no law was broken, or all seen as children, in which case the same standards used for adults is not applicable. It is idiocy to try to have it both ways.


[edit on 17-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
This girl did. The reason she took these photos was to arouse her bf..


Okay just so I fully understand what you are saying:

It's okay for this minor to arouse her boyfriend, get naked in front of his eyes, and then proceed to have sex with her minor boyfriend.

It's not okay for this minor to arouse her boyfriend by getting naked and taking a photo of it, and then proceed to show her minor boyfriend.

Right?



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Yes you have alluded that a handful of times.

But what kind of punishment are you suggesting then??...

You sound pretty determined that she is in fact creating and distributing child porn. So then I interpret that as you sticking with the OP punishment.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

I think a mandatory educational video, and a month suspension of her cell phone should be the entirety of her punishment.


ya in a rational world

but thats not where we are, no we are somewhere else




posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
If it's a crime for kids being stupid then let's just go ahead and arrest them all right now.

This doesn't make any sense what-so-ever. Would they charge her with molestation if she had had sex with another boy/girl who was 15? NO. (Duh.)

So, if she takes pics of herself and sends it to other kids, why is that a "crime"? Now, if she took pics of other kids and sent them around, then it would make perfect sense to call that a crime. But pics of herself? Ground her and take away her phone/computer privileges, but 10 years of government punishment?


Aren't there REAL criminals the DA/Police should be spending taxpayers money going after?



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 





I don't understand why this should be condoned, why people in this thread think that it's ok.


No one is condoning it; it was stupid. And, me personally, I don't see this as child pornography or even pornography for that matter. And, I haven't said she should just get a slap on the wrist or just have her phone taken away. I think she should get mandatory counseling in order for her to learn to respect herself more.

And, in my mind (like others have stated), if these two wouldn't commit a crime by having sex with each other (when they would see each other naked IN PERSON), then I don't see the boyfriend seeing naked pictures of his girlfriend as a crime, either.

Either both of these people were children who were exposed to child pornography and are both victims.....or they are two adults who did nothing wrong. The laws in place are there to protect children from adults. So, are they both children (and victims) or are they both adults (and nothing wrong or illegal was done).

They can't be both, and one can't be classified as different from the other.

[edit on 10/17/2008 by skeptic1]



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Okay your post basically summed up my thoughts better then I could right now, so I am happy to leave the thread at that for the moment



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
This was said before but I think its an extremely good point..

So the girl and the guy can have sex, but cant have naked pictures of themselves?

They are both minors which is what everyone seems to forget. If one was an adult, I could see a very large problem, but hes not. Its sad to say but many young people these days do these types of things in school, taking pictures of themselves and sending them to each other during class - some more explicit then others. The laws are not suited to deal with the technological prevalence among the younger generation.

Have you ever flashed anyone when you were younger?

This is exactly the same thing, think of it as the new kind of flashing. Instead of flashing someone in person, you are using the 2008 method, not the 1962 one.

I cant believe people actually want this girl prosecuted for something that most normal teens do - see each other naked - anyone who denies this is being naive.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 



your confusing baby pictures with pictures with that were created for the specific intent to be pornographic.


How do any of us know what her intent was though? For all we know she was trying to be “artsy”. I mean seriously how much do we know about this case in general? We know that she sent the pictures to a boyfriend and friends. It is all very vague to me, which is why I’m uncomfortable making any assumptions. There is no need for assumptions when discussing a serious topic about a child who could be facing ten years as a registered sex offender.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
The main point is his argument is that she sent him a picture with the purpose of turning him on. This to him is pornography. Others see it as an aid or extension of their sex lives, and pornography is a market, or industry, or business. So, on the picture and porn issue, it boils down to whether she was a child, and therefore this is a non issue because she cannot be both the perpetrator and the victim at the same time, or is she going to be charged as an adult. In which case, its not a child pornography crime, as adults are permitted to do these things whether he thinks its pornographic or not. But what she can't be is charged as an ADULT at 15, and convicted of being in possession of a photo of herself as a CHILD at 15. That inconsistency is not legal.

edit to add emphasis

[edit on 17-10-2008 by mystiq]



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
It's unforunate and sort of sad, but you need to look at the bigger picture. So.. she sends the picture out... someone gets back to her and says "Hey, you get me more like that, and I know someone who will pay you $$$!" Next thing you know, she is selling naked pictures of her little sister, younger friend, and who knows who else. That already happens NOW. They are trying to curb this trend.

Mass media has changed the ways some laws work imo. Computers, camera phones, the Internet, it changed everything.

So while I think if you look at it as a single case, it does seem severe. But if you look at it on a much broader scale, it makes sense. At least imo.

Although, I think the parents should get slammed. Man, I don't recall kids doing a fraction of the near-illegal or plain illegal things kids do these days. And it's because parents don't care. I was doing some computer work on someone's computer (my kung fu instructors younger brother.. instructor was a girl you'd not want to anger). I was setting up Internet and computing for this kid in his room. I asked the parents "do you want me to turn on the filter for adult content?" His sister said "Yes!!".. but her parents, after this 15 yo boy whined and cried at them, said "No, he'll be fine." Oh brother. I said "Are you SURE? This isn't in a public place, he can go anywhere.." He whined some more, his sister was outraged, by the parents listened to their whiney son. Man. That is the state of things in many households now. And that's why it is getting worse.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SantaClaus
 


I completely fail to see any harm at all in this situation. Where is the harm? I think there should be a constitutional amendment that requires people to show actual harm, even if on a statistical likely-hood basis, before they are punished or fined for anything at all.

There is nothing bad about a naked body of any age in my opinion. Seeing a plucked chicken is more offensive, because you know it took that chicken a lot of time to grow those feathers, whereas with clothes you can put them back on really quick. Actually it should be more a crime to send pictures of your naked body if you are 90, because you have to be trying to hurt someone's eyes if you do that!



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 



"Hey, you get me more like that, and I know someone who will pay you $$$!" Next thing you know, she is selling naked pictures of her little sister, younger friend, and who knows who else. That already happens NOW. They are trying to curb this trend.


Why does a girl sending a nude photo of herself to her boyfriend and friends on her camera phone make you assume she is going to become some filthy, paid child pornographer? That's quite a stretch.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
It's unforunate and sort of sad, but you need to look at the bigger picture


Bigger picture?

More like a giant leap in logic, and extraordinarily speculative. Why are you assuming the worst?

What you are doing is called Guilty Until Proven Innocent. And it's a bad attitude to have.

*Edit: Rapinbats you beat me to it


[edit on 17-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


You cannot try and convict someone because of what other people may or may not do in the future.

A stupid act on the part of two teenagers, two adults or two children depending on the person posting
, does not constitue a crime due to worries about loopholes for pedophiles or fears about what the teen may or may not become when they grow up.

It isn't right and it isn't fair.

Look at this case based on what actually happened, who was involved, and what they actually did. To punish the girl with a felony that will follow her for life or a sex offender label is completely absurd.

[edit on 10/17/2008 by skeptic1]



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Tried as a child, she cannot be convicted of being a pedefile by possessing a picture of herself, as an adult this isn't a crime. And the law cannot split her into two categories, both adult and child to satisfy itself. That is inconsistent. Yet it appears that is what they are trying to do.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
It's unforunate and sort of sad, but you need to look at the bigger picture. So.. she sends the picture out... someone gets back to her and says "Hey, you get me more like that, and I know someone who will pay you $$$!" Next thing you know, she is selling naked pictures of her little sister, younger friend, and who knows who else. That already happens NOW. They are trying to curb this trend.

Mass media has changed the ways some laws work imo. Computers, camera phones, the Internet, it changed everything.


If they are trying to curb this trend, they should be prosecuting the people who are involved in this trend – i.e., those who are paying for pictures of juveniles to circulate.

You've got a slippery slope going there that there's just no evidence for. She didn't do this for profit. She didn't take pictures of her little sister, she took pictures of herself.

Yes, camera phones and the internet have changed the way information can be shared. That's why someone needs to talk to the girl.

There are good reasons for teenagers to abide by the curfews their parents set too, but we don't call in the cops if they miss curfew.

Why are people assuming that because she made a mistake, her guardians are incapable of handling the situation and teaching her appropriate behavior? Am I the only person on this board whose parents explained why I shouldn't be doing the things I got in trouble for?

I'll repeat this: her action has had consequences already. She has learned that if she sends people naked pictures of herself, people she doesn't send them to might end up being aware of it. That's the important lesson here – think before you act, be aware of the danger you may be putting yourself into. Believe me, if this went to the principal and her guardians alone, she would have learned about the possibility of humiliation.

Consequences do not have to be legal consequences to be effective in teaching someone about their mistakes. There is no reason for the legal system to be involved.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I am sitting here and wondering why the US justice system seems so devoid of reason and... Well... Justice!

It seems very much like islamic Fiqh and sharia.

A woman is abducted and raped, and she is punished for being alone in a car with a man that she is not related to.

A woman is raped and she is sentenced to death for sex outside of marriage.

What happened to 'let the punishment fit the crime', small crimes get small sentences and big crimes get big sentences. And even then, should it be a crime what the OP described.

To take a 15 year old child who did a stupid thing, and turn her into a sex-offender, where she has to register with the police, can't have certain jobs, can't live near a school, kindergarten or daycarecenter etc. If she has siblings she will have to leave her home and move somewhere without children.

It is an overreaction. It's almost biblical. If your child disobeys you, bring him to the elders of the city and they shall stone him.

Shouldn't justice be just?
Shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?
Shouldn't punishment be reasonable?


[edit on 17-10-2008 by aaa2500]



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Not to mention, shouldn't the crime be consistent and logical and make sense. To charge her with this she would have to be an adult in possession of the photo. A child cannot be both victim and perpetrator. An adult in the flesh, if they treat her as one, is an adult in the photo and that =no crime.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join