Teenager Charged with Child Abuse/Child Porn, for Photographing SELF!

www.usatoday.com...

The girl, whose identity was withheld, was accused of sending out photographs of herself in various states of undress and performing a variety of sexual acts. She sent them to people she met in chat rooms on the Internet, police said.

Police seized her computer and found dozens of photographs stored on the hard drive. Authorities did not say how police learned about the girl.

She has been charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography.

Charged with sexual abuse, posession of child pornography, and dissemination of child pornography?!

WE HAVE GONE INSANE AS A NATION!

This is ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous.

This girl will, presumably, be labeled a sex offender for life because of this incident.

Why did this happen? What do the cops hope to achieve with this?

[edit on 6-2-2007 by WyrdeOne]

I'd agree that sending out the pics of herself like that is not the smartest thing to do.
I can't see how she's abused anyone especially when they're pics of herself and if she's put on the sexual offenders list? That is just ludicrous!

This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard EVER and I've heard some whoppers. Sexual abuse? Self abuse maybe. That will get thrown out.

She may get nailed on the dissemination charge though because that's what she did.

I can see there being charges for distributing nude pics, being that she's underage, but the other charges are ridiculous in this case. That's akin to someone who tried but didn't succede in committing suicide, being charged with attempted murder, and sentenced to death.

Mod Note: Derogatory comment about the population of a country removed.

[edit on 4-2-2007 by TheBandit795]

Originally posted by elysiumfire
removed.

Your right,this country seems to have lost its dang mind.

[edit on 4-2-2007 by TheBandit795]

Is there any way to follow this up, seeing as how it is from 2004?

Or is this just one of those stories that seem to pervade the press these days whereby something is published which, rather than inform it's readership, appears to serve simply to agitate and enflame tempers before quietly slipping from the radar screen, never to be heard from again?

If it's real, did the recipients get investigated?

Yeah, I noticed the date of the article was 2004, but the date of the AP copyright was 2005, and I haven't seen it in the news until today - in 2007.

Very strange...

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

www.usatoday.com...

The girl, whose identity was withheld, was accused of sending out photographs of herself in various states of undress and performing a variety of sexual acts. She sent them to people she met in chat rooms on the Internet, police said.

Police seized her computer and found dozens of photographs stored on the hard drive. Authorities did not say how police learned about the girl.

She has been charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography.

Charged with sexual abuse, posession of child pornography, and dissemination of child pornography?!

WE HAVE GONE INSANE AS A NATION!

This is ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous.

This girl will, presumably, be labeled a sex offender for life because of this incident.

Why did this happen? What do the cops hope to achieve with this?

I agree the charges of sexual abuse and possession of child pornography are ludicrous IF the pictures she had were ONLY of herself. The dissemenation charge is valid though regardless of who was in the picture.

Should this girl be labeled as a sex offender? Maybe.

Should this girl be place into pyschiatric care? Definately.

If she is deemed sane (and I don't see how she could be, but I guess she could) then she should be labeled a sex offender. I wouldn't want my daughter any where near her - sane or otherwise.

I'm simply speechless...

Hopefully the Judge will drop all charges

Still I wonder what he COULD do?

Force her to follow a therapy against child abuse

I would like to find out about what happened in this case, but I'd like to point out even if she is convicted of these charges, she's a minor and it won't go on her permanent adult record and she won't be added to any "sex offender" list.

djohnsto77

I would like to find out about what happened in this case, but I'd like to point out even if she is convicted of these charges, she's a minor and it won't go on her permanent adult record and she won't be added to any "sex offender" list.

No, I don't think that's accurate. Juvenile sex offenders are treated differenly than normal juvenile offenders. They don't automatically get out at 21, they can have their private information posted (normal juvenile offenders have their privacy protected), and they are more closely related to normal sex offenders than normal juvenile non-sex offenders, in regards to the way they're handled.

I just did some reading on the subject, and while stategies for handling this problem vary state to state, one thing is clear - what you've said is not universally applicable, and I'm almost certain it doesn't apply in Pennsylvania.

Mr No One

I agree the charges of sexual abuse and possession of child pornography are ludicrous IF the pictures she had were ONLY of herself. The dissemenation charge is valid though regardless of who was in the picture.

Well, the only information we have makes it seem as if she was the only one in the pictures - in 'various states of undress' if you believe the article.

If she's charged and convicted, this will ruin her life - and for what?!

What did she do that is so horrible? She had pictures of herself! I have pictures of myself too!

Persecuting men (and women) who abuse and exploit children for their own sexual gratification, or for the sexual gratification of other random perverts, is valid and desirable - the vast majority of citizens agree that we can't tolerate these predators in our society. But in this case, the 'pervert' and the 'victim' are one and the same.

There's no logic in prosecuting crimes where the victim and the perpetrator are the same person, it amounts to nothing more than punishing the victim to ostensibly reinforce the letter of the law. The letter of the law is meaningless, if we allow it to usurp and eclipse the spirit of the law.

The spirit of the law against child pornography is well-intentioned and righteous - protecting children should be a focus of any sane society. But what we're doing here is not right, it's not just, and it's not sane.

We're talking about ruining this young woman's life, for having photos of herself nude, and for sharing those photos with other people she met online.

Should this girl be labeled as a sex offender? Maybe.

Now hold on just a minute. This is a victimless crime. The whole reason we have laws is to protect citizens from each other, not to protect citizens from themselves!

This girl made a stupid decision, compromised her own integrity, caused herself problems, and will now have to live with her decisions. We don't need to reinforce the punishment by labeling her a sex offender for taking photos of herself.

Should this girl be place into pyschiatric care? Definately.

WHAT? WHY? She's not crazy, she's just a teenager who did something pretty stupid - we've all been there.

Lord knows I have...

If she is deemed sane (and I don't see how she could be, but I guess she could) then she should be labeled a sex offender. I wouldn't want my daughter any where near her - sane or otherwise.

What makes her insane? The fact that she has sexual thoughts during puberty? The fact that she tried to entice other people with images of her body? Sorry to break the bubble of denial, but welcome to our culture.

This girl might be insane, just as any of us might be insane - but basing a judgement of her sanity off some naughty pictures she took of herself is ludicrous!

What she did was inappropriate, in my opinion, but it wasn't criminal, and it certainly wasn't criminally insane!

I appreciate you adding your thoughts to the thread, but I'm having a very hard time understanding how one comes to the sort of conclusions you appear to support.



[edit on 4-2-2007 by WyrdeOne]

[edit on 4-2-2007 by WyrdeOne]

As I stated in my own thread, these laws are insane and will lead to nothing but more madness.

If the lawmakers want to do any good, they should simply target the MAKERS of Child Porn, the Child Molesters, and other people that are actively perpetuating these situations.

They allow imagery and cultures to permeate the minds and media of our entire nation with sex, children and access. Then, with the full force of our country's technical and monetary might, they target the people that have been caught up in the nightmare, curious of the taboo, damaged by the exposure (like this girl), or just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Meanwhile, there are entire websites dedicated to this slime! And, they remain in-tact, untouched and unharmed. Making money.

Are you kidding me?! Then some of you think it is just to point our national canons at anybody caught in the trap? That is just nuts.

People will be singing different tunes when the same exact steps are taken to crush pot smokers, drinkers, under age smokers, addicts, etc.

It's coming folks. Just remember, it could have been stopped. But, they played on our hate and fear, and we gave them all the power they needed.

OK let me simplify my thought patterns here:

She took pictures of herself, a minor, with the express intent of having them viewed in a sexual manner and distributed them to others. That is against the law. Does it matter where pedofiles get their porn from? Not in my book.

Does that make her insane or criminally insane? No. Does that mean she needs some kind of help? Yeah I think it does. Isn't that the most logical course of action? To get this girl some help so she KNOWS that she doesn't need to degrade herself in this manner simply to get attention?

If you're going to talk about the spirit of law being to protect the children, then protect this child to if from no one else than herself. Which is NOT the only person she needs to be protected from. All the nut jobs out there who think its OK for kids to take sexual pictures of themselves and share them with others are on the list of people she needs to be protected from. Not to mention the perverts who would take the fact that these pictures exsist as an inventation to rape or molest the girl.

How can you NOT want the judiciary system to try and help this poor girl?

This is the thread IeatAliens is talking about.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I read it when it was first posted, and agreed with the premise.

There's no reason not to protect children from predators, but if we allow ourselves to go off the deep end, it serves nobody - least of all the children.

Mr No One

She took pictures of herself, a minor, with the express intent of having them viewed in a sexual manner and distributed them to others.

I dated a girl in High School who was a budding (no pun intended) photographer. She had a handful of incredibly beautiful (and erotic) photos of herself. She was two years younger than I was, and that's some heinous crime for her to take the pictures in the first place, and then share them with me?



Do I think the pictures should be circulating on the web? Of course not! But the cat's out of the bag now, isn't it? We can't stuff Pandora's sin back in the box, we can only try to limit the damage it causes using our own common sense and good judgement.

And my common sense says that punishing the victim is just about the worst thing you can do.

In my opinion, adults who prey on children and exploit them, as well as rapists and murderers in general, should either be hung or exiled. No second chances. Society doesn't need 'em, and if they want to act like animals, they don't need society. Get rid of 'em and be done with it.

But there's a monumental difference between an underage girl with nude photos of herself, and some drooling psychopath who collects images of prepubescent girls for sexual gratification. I have a great deal of sympathy for the former, and none for the latter. Why? Because I understand the former, and not the latter.

Maybe this is my own inability to apply the law universally? Possible...

But I don't think the law should be cold and featureless, it should be alive, adaptable, and responsive to the needs of the citizens it ostensibly serves.

How are we, the citizens, served by the prosecution of this young girl?

Does that mean she needs some kind of help? Yeah I think it does. Isn't that the most logical course of action? To get this girl some help so she KNOWS that she doesn't need to degrade herself in this manner simply to get attention?

Yeah, she probably has some self-esteem issues, or maybe not, I don't know. The justice system doesn't help people though, never make the mistake of presuming that's its charter.

In America we no longer operate reformatories, we operate penitentiaries. Big difference.

If you're going to talk about the spirit of law being to protect the children, then protect this child to if from no one else than herself.

Protect her from herself? How? We can try to remove the photos, we can ensure her safety by monitoring her contact with adults who might have been clued in to her existence because of the stupid thing she did, but what more can we do?

How can you NOT want the judiciary system to try and help this poor girl?

Don't get me wrong, I would love for the justice system to help her, but it's simply not capable of doing anything of the sort. It's capable of punishing her, segregating her from the rest of society, but not much else.

The only people who can help her now are her parents, and of course she's always capable of helping herself. Her friends can look out for her well-being as well.

But what's the court got to do with it? Could she benefit from some counseling? Probably, no harm in that at least.

But the charges brought against her are very, very serious. I don't see how criminalizing her is going to help her.




[edit on 4-2-2007 by WyrdeOne]

And, YES, she will be on the sex offender registration.

I am really surprised by how many people on this site do not know the laws involved.

Usually, this is a very "current, informed" forum.

She will be on the registry. Sometime in the future, she MAY be able to get herself off of it. But, it will take a legal battle, and approval from Megan's Law.

People:

If you have ever found child porn on your pc, been sent some that you did not want, get routed to a child porn site by mistake, received a trojan that may have brought some to your pc, or used a shareware software that could have helped somebody store it on your pc, or God knows how many other scenarios, there is no middle ground.

Know this... You are considered, by the law, to be a Sex Offender. Period.
Because of the combination of my profession, and my knowledge of these topics, people that know me have contacted me for years, to tell me when they find things on their pc's that they cannot explain.

So, it really ticks me off when uneducated people, that know nothing of the topic, laws or current events, say that this is not happening, or that ANYBODY found with this evidence on their pc, is in fact guilty!

And, trust me, I do check to see if it is something they grabbed on purpose.
But, there are many ways to find out the origin of these images.

From my Thread:

You people NEED to see this.

Prison time for viewing Porn? (Update)

abcnews.go.com...

Hahaha, oh wow. That is weird on so many levels.

I mean it was really messed up of her for sending out her pics like that on the internet but wow thats a new one. Getting arrested for possession of child porn of yourself.

Just...wow.

I have recently read on another thread that for most states in the US that girls can have sex at 16.

www.coolnurse.com...

This girl was 15,some girls can be more physically or mentally mature at that age than others who are older.

With out knowing details of herself and who she sent the photo`s too its impossible to understand what happened and what should happen.

But for what was posted in the article,I`s just say she should have been given not much more than a slap on the wrist.

Being put through all of this and maybe for life will be more damaging to her psychologically than what she did to begin with.

Good grief! This is quite silly. If the pictures were only of herself, and she took them, I don't see what the big deal is. Of course, if I were her parents, I wouldn't want her sending the pictures around the net (or having them for that matter), but the police?!

Thank goodness that I didn't run into any psycho junk like this when I was 16. Of course, if I talk about that, maybe the police are going to run after me, too?

Originally posted by GT100FV
I can see there being charges for distributing nude pics, being that she's underage, but the other charges are ridiculous in this case. That's akin to someone who tried but didn't succede in committing suicide, being charged with attempted murder, and sentenced to death.

People are charged with something akin to attempted murder for failed suicide, that is... if they don't make insanity claims. Either way, you would go to a hospital for the mentally insane, go to jail, or have to pay a huge fine.