Middle-school kids criminally charged over text message

[CarmelHP]

While these pics are originally for private use, do you honestly think they remain so?

So we punish teenagers because someone else may potentially abuse their photos.

 

[elaw555]

So we punish teenagers because someone else may potentially abuse their photos.

We aren't talking about kids who get their photo's of them tanning in a bikini stolen or hacked or something. We are talking about "kiddie porn". How can we make an exception simply because the "kiddie porn" was produced and distributed by the underage kid who is in the pictures.

Under the law, if they "produce" them, and they end up being "public" and they are "children" they are responsible for their distribution of child pornography. Don't like it. Tough.

Your actions have consequences. You must take responsibility for them.

Reminds me of a story my dad told me. When he was in High School they just built the new football stadium and he and a friend decided it would be cool to ride his friends moped around the track outside the football field a couple of times. Come Monday the big talk was that someone had damaged the track by driving around it. He and his friend turned themselves in only to find out that the track had been damaged by a car and had two shallow ruts in it. Even though they didn't cause the damage they still got the punishment. Their parents didn't whine, complain, or treaten to sue the school, they likely punished them again when they got home. The result was two responsible, successful people that learned a valuable lesson.

My grave concern is if we begin to make exeptions for underage kids producing their own "kiddie porn", when do parents who exploit their own kids in a likewise fashion start demanding an exception because they are the parents and "know best for their kids"?

 

[Bill of Rights]

We aren't talking about kids who get their photo's of them tanning in a bikini stolen or hacked or something. We are talking about "kiddie porn". How can we make an exception simply because the "kiddie porn" was produced and distributed by the underage kid who is in the pictures.

Under the law, if they "produce" them, and they end up being "public" and they are "children" they are responsible for their distribution of child pornography. Don't like it. Tough.

Your actions have consequences. You must take responsibility for them.

Reminds me of a story my dad told me. When he was in High School they just built the new football stadium and he and a friend decided it would be cool to ride his friends moped around the track outside the football field a couple of times. Come Monday the big talk was that someone had damaged the track by driving around it. He and his friend turned themselves in only to find out that the track had been damaged by a car and had two shallow ruts in it. Even though they didn't cause the damage they still got the punishment. Their parents didn't whine, complain, or treaten to sue the school, they likely punished them again when they got home. The result was two responsible, successful people that learned a valuable lesson.

My grave concern is if we begin to make exeptions for underage kids producing their own "kiddie porn", when do parents who exploit their own kids in a likewise fashion start demanding an exception because they are the parents and "know best for their kids"?

I reiterate my previous post: The point of kiddie porn laws is to prevent the kids from being exploited by adults who know better and don't care. This would include parents, though admittedly, the picture of the naked baby on the bearskin rug, with the only thing close to "suggestive" or "porn" being a bare baby butt, probably should be exempt, as should any that is merely "cute baby" (such photos have gotten parents arrested before)

When the adult is punished, it is for exploiting an innocent child. When the child is punished likewise, (as an adult), it would seem to beg the question:
Is this an adult who knowingly committed exploitation or an innocent child who was exploited? The same person cannot be both, yet the "criminal" and "victim" of this crime are one and the same.

So which is it? **

Blessings,
Bill

**I mean this question rhetorically, but if you choose to answer it, go right ahead.

 

[Eddie]

You tell me why they do this. As a layperson, I have more trouble from the crap I hear prosecutors pulling than I do from defense attorneys.

Is it as common as it seems to throw common sense out the window as long as they think they can win or get a plea?

From my perspective it is part of a disturbing trend away from discretion and towards so called "zero tolerance". I first heard the term zero tolerance being used to refer to anti-crime patrols of plain clothes officers in the mid nineties. It seems to have grown and invaded all levels of the system. No longer are cops, prosecutors and judges asked to use a little common sense and filter out the cases that don't belong in the system, instead, the trend seems to be more towards creating a blanket rule that applies to everyone and then just shrugging our shoulders when we see the law applied in a ridiculous manner.

 

[dross]

We aren't talking about kids who get their photo's of them tanning in a bikini stolen or hacked or something. We are talking about "kiddie porn". How can we make an exception simply because the "kiddie porn" was produced and distributed by the underage kid who is in the pictures.

Under the law, if they "produce" them, and they end up being "public" and they are "children" they are responsible for their distribution of child pornography. Don't like it. Tough.

Your actions have consequences. You must take responsibility for them.

Reminds me of a story my dad told me. When he was in High School they just built the new football stadium and he and a friend decided it would be cool to ride his friends moped around the track outside the football field a couple of times. Come Monday the big talk was that someone had damaged the track by driving around it. He and his friend turned themselves in only to find out that the track had been damaged by a car and had two shallow ruts in it. Even though they didn't cause the damage they still got the punishment. Their parents didn't whine, complain, or treaten to sue the school, they likely punished them again when they got home. The result was two responsible, successful people that learned a valuable lesson.

My grave concern is if we begin to make exeptions for underage kids producing their own "kiddie porn", when do parents who exploit their own kids in a likewise fashion start demanding an exception because they are the parents and "know best for their kids"?

The government's interest in child pornography is not the photo or the video. It's the fact that it is a record of child abuse. Everyone who buys it is contracting for more child abuse by creating a market. That's why if a painter or other artist drew pictures of children being molested, disgusting as it is, I don't think it can be prosecuted (lawyers?).

Using child pornography laws to punish children who were not abused turns the law on its ear, and makes a mockery of its intent.

It would be like if you locked yourself out of your house so you broke a window to get in, and the police arrested you for breaking and entering.

Ridiculous and indefensible. Arrested for exploiting yourself.

 

[rambone]

Reminds me of a story my dad told me. When he was in High School they just built the new football stadium and he and a friend decided it would be cool to ride his friends moped around the track outside the football field a couple of times. Come Monday the big talk was that someone had damaged the track by driving around it. He and his friend turned themselves in only to find out that the track had been damaged by a car and had two shallow ruts in it. Even though they didn't cause the damage they still got the punishment. Their parents didn't whine, complain, or treaten to sue the school, they likely punished them again when they got home. The result was two responsible, successful people that learned a valuable lesson.

Good story. But it doesn't really remind me of this situation at all.

This situation reminds me of every kid who brings a Swiss Army knife to school, and the school dispatches the SWAT team to secure the school and haul the kid away. Insane, irrational overreaction. Police intervening when the school or the parents could have easily handled the situation.

 

[Principal Skinr]

Good story. But it doesn't really remind me of this situation at all.

This situation reminds me of every kid who brings a Swiss Army knife to school, and the school dispatches the SWAT team to secure the school and haul the kid away. Insane, irrational overreaction. Police intervening when the school or the parents could have easily handled the situation.

Two things: First, the Swiss Army knife thing happens in Zero Tolerance schools. Most schools handle that kind of thing differently. Many times over the years we've found pocket knives on kids and, as long as there's no evidence of threats or conflict, we turn them over to the parents and have typically ended it there. However, many of the cases you've read about in the media didn't tell the whole story, leaving out details like the kid threatening to fight another kid in the days preceeding the incident. I know first hand of several cases like that. As for Zero Tolerance, it is a dumb idea, but in each case, the school board, who is elected by the community, has decided that is what they want. If you don't like Zero Tolerance, and I don't, then move somewhere that doesn't have it, or expose it for what it is to the school board--a dumb idea that doesn't let anyone use their brains or common sense.

As for the topic of this thread, I'm calling BS. If this kid or both kids have to register as sex offenders, then post the link or give the names so we can check it. I'm going to be shocked if the prosecutor requires that. In similar cases I've experienced, none of the kids involved had to register as a sex offender, because the prosecutors used common sense. I'll be happy to eat crow if I'm wrong and someone can show us the link. If they have to register, then shame on the prosecutor for handling it that way. However, if the kid was on probation for marijuana, then it serves him right. My guess would be that there is MUCH more to this kid's story if they throw the book at him, and none of us will never know it. Things are not usually as cut and dried as they are presented in the media or on an internet forum. It is easy to describe a simple situation and try to make someone look like an unreasonable idiot by leaving out details, such as prior arrests or probation for other crimes.

 

[dross]

Snip
Things are not usually as cut and dried as they are presented in the media or on an internet forum. It is easy to describe a simple situation and try to make someone look like an unreasonable idiot by leaving out details, such as prior arrests or probation for other crimes.

Could you please describe a hypothetical about prior trouble that would justify charging these children with child pornography?

 

[Fargo]

I think this is the most fun I've ever seen people have beating a dead horse that doesn't even exist. They aren't going to prison, they aren't required to register as sex offenders. Re-read the OP; they were referred to juvenile probation where in all likelihood they will get some counseling about why this is a really bad idea, do some community service and be required to stay out of trouble.

IMO, generating sexual images of children is a serious deal, even if they are doing it themselves. It isn't so much that they need to be punished criminally for it, but rather that they need to understand the gravity of what they are doing and the potential consequences. The last 'sexting' case that I know of locally ended up with video of a 14 year old being done by an 18 year old being sent to dozens of people. The 18 year old is looking at a good bit of prison time out of the deal. The video was also posted to the internet. Stupid kids don't need to go to prison for this stuff, but they do need to have some significant consequences put in their faces.

Joe

 

[Eddie]

Two things: First, the Swiss Army knife thing happens in Zero Tolerance schools. Most schools handle that kind of thing differently. Many times over the years we've found pocket knives on kids and, as long as there's no evidence of threats or conflict, we turn them over to the parents and have typically ended it there. However, many of the cases you've read about in the media didn't tell the whole story, leaving out details like the kid threatening to fight another kid in the days preceeding the incident. I know first hand of several cases like that. As for Zero Tolerance, it is a dumb idea, but in each case, the school board, who is elected by the community, has decided that is what they want. If you don't like Zero Tolerance, and I don't, then move somewhere that doesn't have it, or expose it for what it is to the school board--a dumb idea that doesn't let anyone use their brains or common sense.

As for the topic of this thread, I'm calling BS. If this kid or both kids have to register as sex offenders, then post the link or give the names so we can check it. I'm going to be shocked if the prosecutor requires that. In similar cases I've experienced, none of the kids involved had to register as a sex offender, because the prosecutors used common sense. I'll be happy to eat crow if I'm wrong and someone can show us the link. If they have to register, then shame on the prosecutor for handling it that way. However, if the kid was on probation for marijuana, then it serves him right. My guess would be that there is MUCH more to this kid's story if they throw the book at him, and none of us will never know it. Things are not usually as cut and dried as they are presented in the media or on an internet forum. It is easy to describe a simple situation and try to make someone look like an unreasonable idiot by leaving out details, such as prior arrests or probation for other crimes.

Here's the statute, you will note that a Judge could find that they aren't required to register, but it is a possibility:

IC 11-8-8-4.5 "Sex offender"

Chapter 8. Sex Offender Registration
Sec. 4.5. (a) Except as provided in section 22 of this chapter, as used in this chapter, "sex offender" means a person convicted of any of the following offenses:
(1) Rape (IC 35-42-4-1).
(2) Criminal deviate conduct (IC 35-42-4-2).
(3) Child molesting (IC 35-42-4-3).
(4) Child exploitation (IC 35-42-4-4(b)).
(5) Vicarious sexual gratification (including performing sexual conduct in the presence of a minor) (IC 35-42-4-5).
(6) Child solicitation (IC 35-42-4-6).
(7) Child seduction (IC 35-42-4-7).
(8) Sexual misconduct with a minor as a Class A, Class B, or Class C felony (IC 35-42-4-9), unless:
(A) the person is convicted of sexual misconduct with a minor as a Class C felony;
(B) the person is not more than:
(i) four (4) years older than the victim if the offense was committed after June 30, 2007; or
(ii) five (5) years older than the victim if the offense was committed before July 1, 2007; and
(C) the sentencing court finds that the person should not be required to register as a sex offender.
(9) Incest (IC 35-46-1-3).
(10) Sexual battery (IC 35-42-4-8).
(11) Kidnapping (IC 35-42-3-2), if the victim is less than eighteen (18) years of age, and the person who kidnapped the victim is not the victim's parent or guardian.
(12) Criminal confinement (IC 35-42-3-3), if the victim is less than eighteen (18) years of age, and the person who confined or removed the victim is not the victim's parent or guardian.
(13) Possession of child pornography (IC 35-42-4-4(c)).
(14) Promoting prostitution (IC 35-45-4-4) as a Class B felony.
(15) Promotion of human trafficking (IC 35-42-3.5-1(a)(2)) if the victim is less than eighteen (18) years of age.
(16) Sexual trafficking of a minor (IC 35-42-3.5-1(b)).
(17) Human trafficking (IC 35-42-3.5-1(c)(3)) if the victim is less than eighteen (18) years of age.
(18) An attempt or conspiracy to commit a crime listed in subdivisions (1) through (17).
(19) A crime under the laws of another jurisdiction, including a military court, that is substantially equivalent to any of the offenses listed in subdivisions (1) through (18).
(b) The term includes:
(1) a person who is required to register as a sex offender in any jurisdiction; and
(2) a child who has committed a delinquent act and who:
(A) is at least fourteen (14) years of age;
(B) is on probation, is on parole, is discharged from a facility by the department of correction, is discharged from a secure private facility (as defined in IC 31-9-2-115), or is discharged from a juvenile detention facility as a result of an adjudication as a delinquent child for an act that would be an offense described in subsection (a) if committed by an adult; and
(C) is found by a court by clear and convincing evidence to be likely to repeat an act that would be an offense described in subsection (a) if committed by an adult.
(c) In making a determination under subsection (b)(2)(C), the court shall consider expert testimony concerning whether a child is likely to repeat an act that would be an offense described in subsection (a) if committed by an adult.

 

[elaw555]

C 35-49-3-1
Sale, distribution, or exhibition of obscene matter
Sec. 1. A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) sends or brings into Indiana obscene matter for sale or distribution; or
(2) offers to distribute, distributes, or exhibits to another person obscene matter;
commits a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if the obscene matter depicts or describes sexual conduct involving any person who is or appears to be under sixteen (16) years of age.

and before you ask, yes, a nude pic of a 14 year old girl counts as sexual conduct...

IC 35-49-1-9
"Sexual conduct"
Sec. 9. "Sexual conduct" means:
(1) sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct;
(2) exhibition of the uncovered genitals in the context of masturbation or other sexual activity;
(3) exhibition of the uncovered genitals of a person under sixteen (16) years of age;
(4) sado-masochistic abuse; or
(5) sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct with an animal.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.33.

The minute a child hits send on their cell phone they are in violation of the above law (a class D felony), whether or not a monetary exchange was involved. This is the law that allows the police to remove the 40 year old pervert from society and remove the end user from the child porn pipeline.

Lets say a 14 year old takes a nude pic to send to her boyfriend, they break up and as revenge he posts this pic online. A pervert finds it and adds it to his collection which he sells to other perverts online and through the mail. The FED's track it down, arrest the end user and the guy who pulled it from the public web site and sold it. How can they not also bring some punishment to the person who first distributed it on a "public" site and the original producer, even if it was the person themselves. I'm not advocating a mandatory registration as a sex offender, but some punishment needs to be brought.

Since this seems to be a matter of perspective lets take some time to add some here.

1. If your daughter was the girl in the above story, and the police told you that the ex-boyfriend wasn't being punished how would that go over for you? Don't BS me, I don't have my waders on. I'm guessing not well...not well at all.

 

[CarmelHP]

Since this seems to be a matter of perspective lets take some time to add some here.

1. If your daughter was the girl in the above story, and the police told you that the ex-boyfriend wasn't being punished how would that go over for you? Don't BS me, I don't have my waders on. I'm guessing not well...not well at all.

Just great if my daughter wasn't being charged with a felony sex crime as a producer, which is what you're arguing for. That's insane.

 

[elaw555]

Just great if my daughter wasn't being charged with a felony sex crime as a producer, which is what you're arguing for. That's insane.

That takes the discretion of a prosecutor. He can't not charge her with something because technically what she did was against the law. Does he argue for a day of community service? The fact remains she must be charged with something.

 

[rambone]

I think she should be charged in Parental Court and sentenced to 6 month grounding in a maximum security Bedroom Facility. That should hopefully quench your thirst for obligatory justice.

 

[CarmelHP]

That takes the discretion of a prosecutor. He can't not charge her with something because technically what she did was against the law. Does he argue for a day of community service? The fact remains she must be charged with something.

Of course, we should miss no opportunity for unthinking, unreasoning, blind retribution against a child for her heinous crime of taking a nude picture of herself. We have to destroy her in order to protect her. The insanity of it is boundless.

 

[Dr Falken]

I guess if you blocked the data function on their phones, you wouldn't have this problem.

 

[jsgolfman]

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.