Middle-school kids criminally charged over text message

[rambone]

Add two more people to the sex-offender registry! That will teach em.

Middle school students charged in 'sexting' case

Police said Valparaiso boy, girl sent nude pictures to each other



VALPARAISO | Two Ben Franklin Middle School students who Valparaiso police said were caught using their cell phones to exchange nude pictures of each other -- a practice called sexual texting or "sexting" -- are facing criminal charges.

A 13-year-old Valparaiso girl and a 12-year-old Valparaiso boy were referred to juvenile probation on charges of possession of child pornography and child exploitation. In adult court, the charges would carry a maximum penalty of 11 years in prison, but prosecutors expect the case to be handled in the juvenile system.

"Something needs to be done, but we think dealing with them through the juvenile court system is appropriate, so as not to saddle them with (consequences) from the adult system," Porter County Prosecutor Brian Gensel said.

In the adult system, convicted offenders face not only prison time but also having to register as a sex offender.

The case against the Valparaiso students came to light when the girl's phone went off during class Jan. 21 and the teacher confiscated it. The teacher told police the girl asked to delete something from the phone before it was turned over to the administration, but that request was denied.

The teacher said the girl began crying, saying she would get in trouble because the boy had sent her a dirty picture.

An investigation revealed the boy sent the girl an explicit photo of himself Jan. 17 and asked her to use her cellular phone to send back a similar picture of herself, which she did, police said. Police further found out the girl showed the picture of the boy to one of her friends.

Deputy Prosecutor Cheryl Polarek said young people don't understand the ramifications of texting nude pictures or posting certain material on social networking sites like Facebook. She said a nude picture could end up being shared with half the school and could get in the hands of people who seek out child pornography.

Even though it is illegal to send or possess nude pictures of someone younger than 18, a national survey found 20 percent of teens have texted or posted online nude or semi-nude pictures of themselves.

Gensel, who belongs to the National District Attorneys Association, said the association's trade publication featured a column on sexting that highlighted Montgomery County, Ohio, Prosecutor Mathias Heck Jr.'s implementation of a "diversion program" for sexting cases.

Young people who enter the diversion program undergo education on appropriate sexual boundaries and related topics, complete community service and relinquish their cell phone for a period of time. If the program is successfully completed, the charges are dismissed or never filed.

Gensel agrees with Heck that there needs to be some "tempering" of prosecution so some foolish, consenting behavior doesn't have long-term ramifications on young people's lives. Gensel favors a system in which young people receive an explanation about how serious of a matter sexual texting is, and that there will be serious consequences if they continue doing it.

Valparaiso police Sgt. Michael Grennes said this case shows the need for parents to educate their children about what they can and can't do with their cellular phones or on their computers. He also recommends parents to follow through by monitoring their children's phone and computer use. He also said parents might want to consider whether their child really needs to own a phone.

 

[UltraRick]

Although there should be a penalty (community service, etc) Registering as a sex offender is over the line IMHO

 

[dross]

Ridiculous beyond words. Playing doctor on a cell phone and a child is charged with child pornography?

Everyone from the principal to the prosecutor should lose their jobs.

1. The principal should call their parents and give them detention.
2. If the principal called the police, he should have been laughed off the phone.
3. If the police took it to the prosecutor's office, they should have been laughed out of there.
4. Let's hope the judge who gets this isn't laughing at all, and let's the idiots have it.

Criminalizing behavior that is a part of everyone's childhood is disgusting and evil.

 

[melensdad]

I wonder if they sent the texts while driving. That would have been really bad!!!

 

[level.eleven]

Sexting can ruin your life kids. And just to prove that point, we are going to ruin your life kids. (credit to Balko)

 

[rambone]

I think it is strictly a parenting issue, not enough reason for the government/police to get involved. I don't think there should be a law that says kids must eat their vegetables at the dinner table. It is the parent's job to discipline the kids.

Start off by taking the d**n cell phone away from your 12-year old.

 

[SKSnut]

I think it is strictly a parenting issue, not enough reason for the government/police to get involved. I don't think there should be a law that says kids must eat their vegetables at the dinner table. It is the parent's job to discipline the kids.

Start off by taking the d**n cell phone away from your 12-year old.

i completely agree.

 

[rambone]

A 13-year-old Valparaiso girl and a 12-year-old Valparaiso boy were referred to juvenile probation on charges of possession of child pornography and child exploitation.

How can you exploit yourself?

 

[Phil502]

They go to far with this stuff, I don't think the law needs to be involved to that extent. It would be different if the girl objected to the picture and reported it, then maybe suspension or something but thats not the case here.

 

[Bubba]

She said a nude picture could end up being shared with half the school and could get in the hands of people who seek out child pornography.

Sounds like a "common sense" porn law to me. After all, if we criminalize possession of nude pics by those who should be allowed (under law, at least) allowed to possess them, then no one who isn't allowed to posses them will. Now on to criminalizing legal gun ownership so criminals can't steal guns...

 

[ocsdor]

What kills me is the fact that if the kids have sex with each other, then no big deal. But, if they take a picture of it, then off to jail they go.

This is more proof that the highway to hell is paved with good intentions. The intention is to protect children from predators and exploitation. The highway to hell is these kids facing jail sentences.

Like Rambone said, how can they exploit themselves? How is one a victim and a victimizer of one's self?

I hope the parents don't settle with the prosecutor's office. Either drop the charges or go in front of a jury. Hopefully atleast one person in the jury would have enough sense to side with the kids/parents.

 

[samot]

Sexting can ruin your life kids. And just to prove that point, we are going to ruin your life kids. (credit to Balko)

+ 1

 

[Fargo]

Although there should be a penalty (community service, etc) Registering as a sex offender is over the line IMHO

Everyone who thinks they are going to jail or have to register as a sex offender needs to read the parts in bold:

A 13-year-old Valparaiso girl and a 12-year-old Valparaiso boy were referred to juvenile probation on charges of possession of child pornography and child exploitation. In adult court, the charges would carry a maximum penalty of 11 years in prison, but prosecutors expect the case to be handled in the juvenile system.

"Something needs to be done, but we think dealing with them through the juvenile court system is appropriate, so as not to saddle them with (consequences) from the adult system," Porter County Prosecutor Brian Gensel said.

In the adult system, convicted offendersface not only prison time but also having to register as a sex offender.

They don't have to register and no one is going to prison. JUVENILE PROBATION is what they were referred to.

Joe

 

[rambone]

Still outrageous.

 

[Principal Skinr]

Nowhere in there does it say they will have to register as sex offenders. The juvenile system does not require that, although it can be done in circumstances, such as a teen molesting a younger child. Even then, the juvenile record is sealed when the child hits 18. Many here are assuming the consequences are the same as if they were in adult court, and that couldn't be further from the truth. What it did say is they would be likely put on juvenile probation. That amounts to little more than a hand slap.

As far as firing the principal, you need to understand that by law, the possession and even the very existence of the nude pictures of minors must be reported to CPS. There is no discretion allowed. For example, if a student tells me that uncle Bob molested her, even if I am sure she is lying, and even if I have evidence she is lying, I have to report it. You can say what you want, with all the bravado you can muster safe in your home in front of your computer. When I consider that my kids need their dad to keep his job and put food on the table, I am following the law to the letter.

I'm not saying reporting it isn't the right thing to do, even though I believe it is. What I am saying is that the educators were required by law to do so, whether they wanted to or not.

As for why it should have been reported...I've been working with kids this age long enough to know that what they tell you and what really occurred are often very different stories. We've had cases where adult family members had taken the nude pictures of the teen on the phone. Do you think the teen initially told us that? Not on your life.

These kids are not going to have to register as sex offenders, unless the juvenile court prosecutor is a numbskull, assuming the kids' stories are the truth. They will have a probation period and when it is over, if they stay out of trouble, they'll be in the clear, and can ask that even the juvenile record be expunged. The judges I know would grant that, again, if they stay out of trouble, and if they had no previous criminal record. As for the pictures winding up in the hands of pedophiles...it happens all the time.

 

[groovatron]

We live in a country where certain plants are illegal, unclothed bodies are a sin, and people face financial penalties if they are not tethered into their car. Will we ever truly be free?

 

[LPMan59]

this wouldnt happen if the parents used those excellent abstinence only sex ed classes.

 

[Bill of Rights]

How can you exploit yourself?

BINGO!

When a photographer takes pictures of a minor in some state of undress, with intent to arouse a prurient interest, that person is taking advantage of the young person's naivete' for personal gain (not always monetary)

The law steps in because the child, being so young, is inexperienced and knows not what repercussions may come of posing for such pictures, and is at the mercy of the adult who is presumably coercing him/her to model for the pictures.

The crime, therefore, is abusing one's adult position, knowledge, and authority for nefarious purposes and personal gain

When the child is the photographer, s/he knows what s/he is doing, though possibly not the repercussions. Thus, we are punishing the photographer as an adult for taking advantage of a minor, who it so happens is the same person as the photographer, but as a minor child, is in need of the courts' protection from the evil pornographer. Do you suppose the court will issue a protective order to keep the criminal away from the victim?

Da*n, and I'm not even an attorney. Anyone want to lay odds on a dismissal?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SavageEagle]

Nowhere in there does it say they will have to register as sex offenders. The juvenile system does not require that, although it can be done in circumstances, such as a teen molesting a younger child. Even then, the juvenile record is sealed when the child hits 18.

While I was about to point out also that they aren't required to register, your first part of your post is just a bit off.

My neighbor friend is 17. When he was 16 he had a 15y/o gf. They were having sex, of course, and the parents of both parties knew it. When they broke up, she got upset and the the father called police. He now has to register as a sex offender and he has had trouble getting a job. It will not be wiped off his record when he turns 18 either. Also, because he can't find good work, he turned to dealing pot. Which he got caught for possession and driving on a restricted license. I tried to convince him to stop because I too had been arrested for possession but not while I was on probation already. He's now sitting in Muncie until March.

His life is now ruined because it was a CRIME to have sex with his GF who was only 2 months younger than him. How is that right? Sure, it's a moral thing and a parenting thing when it comes to teenagers having sex. I'm not even saying I agree with it. But it happens. I've only known a couple people who saved themselves for marriage. However. It's NOT the government's place to make immoral acts a crime.

 

[Bill of Rights]

While I was about to point out also that they aren't required to register, your first part of your post is just a bit off.

My neighbor friend is 17. When he was 16 he had a 15y/o gf. They were having sex, of course, and the parents of both parties knew it. When they broke up, she got upset and the the father called police. He now has to register as a sex offender and he has had trouble getting a job. It will not be wiped off his record when he turns 18 either. Also, because he can't find good work, he turned to dealing pot. Which he got caught for possession and driving on a restricted license. I tried to convince him to stop because I too had been arrested for possession but not while I was on probation already. He's now sitting in Muncie until March.

His life is now ruined because it was a CRIME to have sex with his GF who was only 2 months younger than him. How is that right? Sure, it's a moral thing and a parenting thing when it comes to teenagers having sex. I'm not even saying I agree with it. But it happens. I've only known a couple people who saved themselves for marriage. However. It's NOT the government's place to make immoral acts a crime.

If he is 17 now and this happened when he was 16, either someone railroaded him or you don't have the whole story:

IC 35-42-4-3
Child molesting
Sec. 3. (a) A person who, with a child under fourteen (14) years of age, performs or submits to sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct commits child molesting, a Class B felony. However, the offense is a Class A felony if:
(1) it is committed by a person at least twenty-one (21) years of age;
(2) it is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force or while armed with a deadly weapon;
(3) it results in serious bodily injury; or
(4) the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
(b) A person who, with a child under fourteen (14) years of age, performs or submits to any fondling or touching, of either the child or the older person, with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the older person, commits child molesting, a Class C felony. However, the offense is a Class A felony if:
(1) it is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force;
(2) it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon; or
(3) the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
(c) It is a defense that the accused person reasonably believed that the child was sixteen (16) years of age or older at the time of the conduct, unless:
(1) the offense is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force or while armed with a deadly weapon;
(2) the offense results in serious bodily injury; or
(3) the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.38; Acts 1978, P.L.82, SEC.2; Acts 1981, P.L.301, SEC.1; P.L.79-1994, SEC.12; P.L.33-1996, SEC.8; P.L.216-1996, SEC.18; P.L.31-1998, SEC.5; P.L.216-2007, SEC.42.

An element of the crime seems to be that the child be under 14, and by your statement above, she was 15 while he was 16. This has been the law for at least two years now.

In addition,

IC 35-42-4-9
Sexual misconduct with a minor
Sec. 9. (a) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with a child at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16) years of age, performs or submits to sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct commits sexual misconduct with a minor, a Class C felony. However, the offense is:
(1) a Class B felony if it is committed by a person at least twenty-one (21) years of age; and
(2) a Class A felony if it is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force, if it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon, if it results in serious bodily injury, or if the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
(b) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with a child at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16) years of age, performs or submits to any fondling or touching, of either the child or the older person, with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the older person, commits sexual misconduct with a minor, a Class D felony. However, the offense is:
(1) a Class C felony if it is committed by a person at least twenty-one (21) years of age; and
(2) a Class B felony if it is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force, while armed with a deadly weapon, or if the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
(c) It is a defense that the accused person reasonably believed that the child was at least sixteen (16) years of age at the time of the conduct. However, this subsection does not apply to an offense described in subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).
(d) It is a defense that the child is or has ever been married. However, this subsection does not apply to an offense described in subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).
(e) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section if all the following apply:

• (1) The person is not more than four (4) years older than the victim.
• (2) The relationship between the person and the victim was a dating relationship or an ongoing personal relationship. The term "ongoing personal relationship" does not include a family relationship.
• (3) The crime:
• --(A) was not committed by a person who is at least twenty-one (21) years of age;
• --(B) was not committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force;
• --(C) was not committed while armed with a deadly weapon;
• --(D) did not result in serious bodily injury;
• --(E) was not facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge; and
• --(F) was not committed by a person having a position of authority or substantial influence over the victim.
• (4) The person has not committed another sex offense (as defined in IC 11-8-8-5.2) (including a delinquent act that would be a sex offense if committed by an adult) against any other person.

As added by P.L.79-1994, SEC.15. Amended by P.L.33-1996, SEC.9; P.L.216-1996, SEC.21; P.L.31-1998, SEC.8; P.L.266-2003, SEC.1; P.L.216-2007, SEC.45.

Please note the defense to prosecution present under (e):

(e) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section if all the following apply:

• (1) The person is not more than four (4) years older than the victim.
• (2) The relationship between the person and the victim was a dating relationship or an ongoing personal relationship. The term "ongoing personal relationship" does not include a family relationship.
• (3) The crime:

• --(A) was not committed by a person who is at least twenty-one (21) years of age;
• --(B) was not committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force;
• --(C) was not committed while armed with a deadly weapon;
• --(D) did not result in serious bodily injury;
• --(E) was not facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge; and
• --(F) was not committed by a person having a position of authority or substantial influence over the victim.

• (4) The person has not committed another sex offense (as defined in IC 11-8-8-5.2) (including a delinquent act that would be a sex offense if committed by an adult) against any other person.

Something is not being told here, Ryan... Not sure if it's to your neighbor kid or to you, but something is missing from the story.



Blessings,
Bill