15 Year Old Girl Charged as Sex Offender, page 4

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 13 times

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 11:34 AM by whatukno

reply to post by schism85

why is it stupid to uphold the law?

So your saying it's ok to have pictures of naked 15 year olds floating around the Internet or being sent over phones as long as the child took them themselves?

really?

I mean yes the proper punishment should come from the caregivers, however this also should be a public matter to show teenagers whom nowadays seem to be all for the slut look to be a little less provocative.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 11:34 AM by schism85

reply to post by whatukno

Ok, if she must be charged, charge her with lewd conduct or something, don't make her a registered sex offender. Does that really sound reasonable to you considering her age, and considering the fact that she did it to herself?? Do you really think she needs to be in the same category, as grownups, molesting children? I think not.

[edit on 16-10-2008 by schism85]

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 11:36 AM by whatukno

reply to post by schism85

In fact I can agree with that charge, it's proper and does not ruin the childs life forever.

Sometimes an example must be set. Perhaps lower the charges a little but still let this girl have some sort of punnishment according to the law so that a loophole isn't opened for real preditors.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 11:38 AM by schism85

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by schism85

In fact I can agree with that charge, it's proper and does not ruin the childs life forever.

Sometimes an example must be set. Perhaps lower the charges a little but still let this girl have some sort of punnishment according to the law so that a loophole isn't opened for real preditors.

Charge her with something if they must. Don't ruin the girls life for the NEXT 10 YEARS. I never said anything about the rest of her life. Do you know what being on a sex offenders list actually entails?

[edit on 16-10-2008 by schism85]

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 11:41 AM by mystiq

No parent in their right mind would ever expose their child, who would be crushed, to this kind of thing. And in my time, nearly ever kid I know played dirty doctor. Now, these were young kids, but soon in this anti everything, police state, they will be charging seven year old kids. What this shows is a complete lack of respect for human beings and development. If the law is worded in such a way that a loop hole like this can exist to prosecute this kind of explorative
behavior from a teenager, then the law needs to be reworded ASAP. Laws are not written in stone, and the lawmakers are fools, as shown pretty much by the world we live in. I repeat, no parent would ever bring a child up to this kind of shame and ridicule, unless there was something seriously wrong with that person, and would instead use this as a "teaching or learning" moment. There are lots of those moments with kids, trust me!

[edit on 16-10-2008 by mystiq]

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 11:41 AM by Debbie Inbreads

this is alot like what my neighbors do

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 11:43 AM by traderjack

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by schism85

In fact I can agree with that charge, it's proper and does not ruin the childs life forever.

Sometimes an example must be set. Perhaps lower the charges a little but still let this girl have some sort of punnishment according to the law so that a loophole isn't opened for real preditors.

This is just dead eyed neocon group think. Me thinks thou protest too much. Whatukno, why do you think this is a suitable punishment? There are 15 yo that do horrific things that get far less punishment.

Do yourself a favor get a sense of humor and quit listening to everything Falwell and Robertson parrot.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 11:47 AM by Griff

Originally posted by Dock6
But wow .. the outrage in here !

Her right to post naked photos of herself ? Her right ?

Where were you when this was happening?

Court overturns father's grounding of 12-year-old
Jun 18, 2008

The girl had taken her father to Quebec Superior Court after he refused to allow her to go on a school trip for chatting on websites he tried to block, and then posting "inappropriate" pictures of herself online using a friend's computer.

afp.google.com...

So, the courts in one hand say it's ok for a 12 year old to post inappropriate photos of herself on-line and overturn the father's grounding, but it's not ok for a 15 year old to send photos of herself to specific people?

Again, I'll state BIZZARO WORLD.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 11:48 AM by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by schism85

why is it stupid to uphold the law?

So your saying it's ok to have pictures of naked 15 year olds floating around the Internet or being sent over phones as long as the child took them themselves?

really?

I mean yes the proper punishment should come from the caregivers, however this also should be a public matter to show teenagers whom nowadays seem to be all for the slut look to be a little less provocative.

The problem is, the law itself is not clearly written. It says nothing about a child taking photos of herself and sharing with friends. The law was written to protect innocent children FROM ADULTS. This is what Mehgan's Law is all about - protecting children from adults.

See, there are MANY laws on the books that are really ridiculous to enforce and abide by. There are many sex laws on the books that say that a [married] man and woman can not engage in ANY sexual activity except the missionary position. This is still MILITARY law. So, should this ridiculous law be enforced and those engaging in other positions be prosecuted? No. Of course not. It needs to be revised...well, deleted.

The law in question needs to be revised and more specific IMO.

I mean....do you think if she at 15 had sex with her 15 yr old boyfriend, should both of them be prosecuted and punished for the rest of their life??? Because in her state, you have to be 16 to engage in consensual sex.

There has to be some exceptions to rules/laws. There has to be. Because one law can not always cover all situations....and this was clearly an unforsen situation when the law was written for the intent it was written for.

IMO. I have a feeling the judge will give her a stern talking to, and she wont face any criminal charges. I hope so at least.

[edit on 10/16/2008 by greeneyedleo]

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 11:48 AM by DirtyHarry

IMO

All she did was take pictures of herself. Its not like there was no concent. 15 isnt that young of an age. Hell i remember when I was 13, all of that was going on in my neighborhood. I'm 23 now, so it wasnt that long ago.

Let think about this. All of her friends are doing that sort of thing. Shes in a foster home, so we really dont know why she's there, or how un important she feels to everyone. All she's doing is having fun, and being a teenager. How can she be a sex offender when she didnt offend anyone but herself? I will bet money that the people she sent the photos to really didnt mind her doing it

If anything, she should be punished by the foster home, and not by the government.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 11:52 AM by schism85

reply to post by greeneyedleo

I've never heard of that law before. 16 before you can have consensual sex in her state? I would have been in jail for the rest of my life for being a repeat offender if I lived there when I was young.

What a ridiculous law. Then again, their are waaaaay to many babies nowadays, and waaaay to many 14 yr olds having them.

[edit on 16-10-2008 by schism85]

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 11:53 AM by NovusOrdoMundi

reply to post by whatukno

You see, you didn't read my entire post. Instead, you did exactly what I knew someone who responded to me would do.

Read my last paragraph. You quoted the actual law and it's broad, paint everyone with one brush legal talk. You didn't tell me MORALLY what was wrong with this.

I don't care what the law says. I have a problem with the law being in existence in the first place. As billybob said, the laws are to prevent adults from taking advantage of children. No child was taken advantage of in this incident, and no adult was involved, according to the article.

So spare me your politically correct nonsense and tell me straight up: was this girl taking a naked picture of herself so wrong that it is necessary to humiliate her for 10 years, and most likely prevent her from getting a good job and moving ahead in life for 10 years? You're going to ruin her life for 10 years because she decided to send naked pictures of herself to friends?

Stick her in some sexual education classes, or teach her the consequences of putting herself out there in that way, but don't ruin 10 years of her life over some pictures.

I know in some twisted way you people feel like saviors to an innocent child because you're standing up for the law, but you're not saving an innocent child. You're ruining 10 years of an innocent child's life.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 11:58 AM by v3_exceed

Although I am a new member, I have 2 daughters and I believe this gives me a little insight to this issue. (I'm Canadian, so that might play a bit on my response)

This is a stupid law. At 15, many of us were far more interested in sex than we were in school, sports or other hobbies. So naturally if we had camera phones available to us at that age we would probably have used them in this fashion.

To have a girl like this face 10 years for exploiting herself, is just inane. If the pictures she sent were to people within a year or two of her own age, this should be chocked up to curiosity, perhaps an attention grab, but hardly a criminal offense.

There are good reasons to have laws that protect the young from being exploited by beings that are aware of the ramifications and damage this exploitation can cause to a young persons life. This instance is an abuse of those laws.

She should probably be grounded, have her phone taken away and be subject to some discussions with her parents as to why this can harm her future. Based on the information we have about this case, I would not suggest she would be considered the sexual predator that these laws were intended to protect the children from.

Thanks for reading.
..Ex

ps. in many States and Canada it is currently against the law to perform oral sex on your partner. I would bet that many reading this would be considered criminals for just this point

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 11:59 AM by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by schism85
reply to post by greeneyedleo

I've never heard of that law before. 16 before you can have consensual sex in her state? I would have been in jail for the rest of my life for being a repeat offender if I lived there when I was young. What a ridiculous law. Then again, their are waaaaay to many babies nowadays, and waaaay to many 14 yr olds having them.

[edit on 16-10-2008 by schism85]

en.wikipedia.org...

Ohio
The age of consent in Ohio is 16 as specified by Section 2907.04 of Ohio legislation. However there exists a close in age exception where an offender can be charged only if 18 years of age or older. However in that case, it is possible for both minors to be charged as "unruly" if brought to court {§ 2151.022}.

2907.04 Unlawful sexual conduct with minor.
(A) No person who is eighteen years of age or older shall engage in sexual conduct with another, who is not the spouse of the offender, when the offender knows the other person is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age, or the offender is reckless in that regard. {§ 2907.04}.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 12:01 PM by Griff

Originally posted by serial
I think the whole thing is silly myself that we now accept 1 to 1 1/2 year dips into the age of consent / adulthood laws to continuously charge minors with crimes as adults, but I guess its a sign of the times.

This got me thinking.

The courts want to try her and punish her as an adult. But, they use the defense that she is a minor? BIZZARO.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 12:02 PM by schism85

reply to post by greeneyedleo

Iam confused. Age of 16 to have consent to have sex with someone 18 and over. Or in lamens, you have to be 16 before you can have sex period. Sorry, I loved criminal justice, I just have trouble making sense of the law.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 12:04 PM by schism85

reply to post by Griff

Yeah, I hope she sues herself for all shes worth.

Bizaro world indeed.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 12:13 PM by caballero

Lordy lord I hate my country and its idiotic way of handling business so much.

One thing about this that many will not like is that its her freedom as an American to show herself to whomever she wants on gods green earth. Yes parents have the right to guide their children set up the house rules and so forth, but can they decide what she does with her body? can any of us decide that?

Its sad that the age at which teens are experiencing sexuality is happening younger and younger but that is the effects of a society that has sex plasterd everywhere. In music, in movies, in tv. What do teenagers do with their time, watch tv, listen to music, and go to the movies with friends. Of course they are going to want to have sex, after all the sexual exposure they have been dealt.

If you want to stop this kind of thing from happening then SPEND MORE TIME WITH YOUR KIDS! For gods sake be better parents and spend more family time with them, You cant blame her for being the product of her own environment thats what human being are products of our environment.

Its not even that she was showing herself to adults any ways she sent the pictures to some kid her age. Atleast they werent to some 30 year old guy.

Zero accountability. Parents F up then its TV's fault. No its no ones fault but your own stop trying to blame her for something that is naturally human instinct and be better parents.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 12:17 PM by daddyroo45

reply to post by greeneyedleo

I find myself in agreement with you to a point.There is a vast difference between nudity and pornography.According to the OP's source this girl sent nude photos of herself to some friends.They do not state that they were sexualy explicit.
I like everyone of sound mind abhor child pornography.However simple nudity is not wrong.Nudism is an accepted lifestyle in many homes in America.To charge this child on purely puritanical beliefs is wrong.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 12:22 PM by Griff