23
   

Teenage Girl: Sex Offender?

 
 
NickFun
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 05:03 pm
"Licking Valley" High School?
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 05:17 pm
When I was a youth I took some nude snapshots of my girlfriend in the woods. The photo lab refused to develop them. Times have changed!
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 05:31 pm
15 Year Old Girl Faces Sex Offender Status for the Next 20 Years

Quote:
According to Ohio state law, convicted child pornographers are required to carry a Tier 2 sexual offender classification, requiring registration as a sex offender for twenty years. In this case, a teen girl from Licking Valley High School is charged with illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, a second-degree felony; and possession of criminal tools, a fifth-degree felony.

In case you made it this far without passing judgment on “yet another child pornographer,” the girl charged is fifteen years old, her “criminal tool” was a cell phone and MMS (multimedia messaging service). Her “illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material” were nude photos of herself. Putting those together, you can deduce that she took nude photos of herself with her cell phone. The Licking County prosecutor, Ken Oswalt, has received reports of 20 similar cases among school age teens, and he has been traveling to the area schools with an assembly program that discusses the consequences of such actions.

While the teen girl who sent these nude pictures of herself to others via MMS is not alone, she has been the only person arrested. She also spent a weekend in jail awaiting arraignment and a bond hearing. The statute she has been accused of breaking has exemptions in place that allows parents and/or guardians to take pictures of their naked children for a list of acceptable purposes. Interestingly, the statute does not provide the same exemption for the child themselves. While the consequences for her have already been laid out by the prosecutor in the charges, the recipients of her messages may be also facing prosecution for their passive role(s) in this incident.

One thing that falls on the side of the accused girl is the discretion of the judge in the case, since the defendant’s age allows for flexibility on the “sex offender” label. Unlike most mandatory sentencing guidelines, this case allows the judge to decide based on the situation, rather than the black and white handcuffs placed on most public servant decision makers. At least the Ohio lawmakers had the foresight to build in judgment when considering sentencing, even though they omitted an exemption in this law for individuals to possess nude photos of themselves.

What is going on in Licking County, Ohio? There is apparently a wave of teens taking and sharing nude photos of themselves and only one girl has been arrested? There are concerns among area residents that this girl is being subjected to the prosecution due to her status as a foster child. Without biological or adoptive parents to provide the resources necessary for an adequate defense, this case may be a slam dunk for the prosecution. What better way to show your are doing something about child pornography than to railroad this girl to prison for two felonies and a sex offender tag for the next twenty years?

The story here is not only the child pornography law in place to “protect the children,” but the ill-written legislation that did not account for a person’s right to possessing pictures of themselves. It also sounds like Ken Oswalt seeks a name for himself by singling this girl out and prosecuting her, while ignoring approximately 20 others. As an act of principle, I would like to see her cleared of all charges, the law itself re-written, and an investigation into the county prosecutor, as this smells somewhat similar to the Duke rape case.


0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 05:47 pm
Quote:
the recipients of her messages may be also facing prosecution for their passive role(s) in this incident.


Since when is one person responsible for the actions of others??

This whole case is one in a long list that shows how messed up our sex laws are, as I have demonstrated on many a thread. It is only a matter of time before a majority forms to say "STOP THE INSANITY!"
OCCOM BILL
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 06:05 pm
@hawkeye10,
So speaks the very reason this prosecutor should be re-elected.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 06:57 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
So speaks the very reason this prosecutor should be re-elected.


You are being more than exceedingly ignorant, Bill, in this posting and some others.

Should I start sending out warnings that these hard liner types are really the ones that people have to look out for.

No, that would be silly. 'Nuf said.
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 09:58 pm
Doing more digging, I found a similar case in Pittsburgh from 2004:

Girl charged with posting nude photos on Internet

By The Tribune-Review
Saturday, March 27, 2004

Quote:
A 15-year-old Latrobe girl has been arrested for allegedly taking sexually explicit photos of herself and posting them on the Internet.

State police at Greensburg said the girl took photos of herself in various states of undress and performed a variety of sexual acts. She then sent them to people she met in chat rooms on the Internet.

The computer was seized by police, who conducted a forensic investigation and found dozens of photographs of the juvenile stored on the hard drive. The investigation is continuing as state police try to identify all the people who received photos from the girl.

Police said the girl was charged with possession and dissemination of child pornography. A hearing date has not been set.



JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 10:16 pm
@Debra Law,
Quote:
Police said the girl was charged with possession and dissemination of child pornography.


There is something major wrong here. What a 15 year old girl does should have no connection to child pornography laws.
OCCOM BILL
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 11:03 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
So speaks the very reason this prosecutor should be re-elected.


You are being more than exceedingly ignorant, Bill, in this posting and some others.

Should I start sending out warnings that these hard liner types are really the ones that people have to look out for.

No, that would be silly. 'Nuf said.
As if anyone other than you and a perhaps a handful of idiots take you seriously. Hawkeye's been arguing for the right to screw kids since he showed up here and now you're going to go ahead and join him in agreement? Consider what you're actually talking about before running your mouth further. You don't want to share that monster's reputation. Never before have you exhibited his brand of demented misogyny. Don’t start now.

Do you really think these sick bastards give a rat's ass where their picture's come from? Get a clue. Kids are not able to give informed consent, whether they're in front of the camera or in control of it. Broadcasting naked kid pics is illegal for good reason and unless you're as sick as Hawkeye; that shouldn't be difficult to understand. Sometimes it's more important to consider what is actually right, than to try to be right, or try to prove someone you don’t like wrong. You need not like me, in any way shape or form, to realize Hawkeye's obsession with screwing underage girls is the sickness of a demented piece of ****. Check yourself.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 11:06 pm
I find myself in the VERY strange position of agreeing with gungasnake. Sort of. The very most stringent punishment she should be dealt is wearing a sweater with a scarlet "I" for "Idiot" on it. And the prosecutor should have to wear an identical sweater (well, probably a larger one, but otherwise identical).

This seems to be something that's going around among teens everywhere. Remember a few months ago the tabloids and the internet made a big thing of Vanessa Hudgins, the teen star of Disney's "High School Musical" sending nude pictures of herself to her then-boyfriend, and somehow they leaked. Of course she had Disney's money and Disney's lawyer-sharks protecting their investment in her, so the story went round for a couple days, no charges were brought, and after awhile it faded away and she went back to work on "Musical II" or "III" or whatever they're up to now. The poor girl in Kansas doesn't have that kind of backing, so the proseuctor can use her as a tool to make a name for himself.

It seems to be something like "I dare you", and a thrill, and seeking attention at a point in life when almost any kind of attention is a desparate need, and peer pressure, and probably a kind of teen status in having the balls (well, you know what I mean...) to do it. Boys jump into the water in the quarry and kill themselves on the rocks below the water. Girls and boys post nude pictures or pictures of themselves beating on a scapegoat on Facebook. And they get points among their peers. We all know from personal experience that they're all idiots at that age anyway, with hormones making them nutty. I can't see a real crime here except exceedingly poor judgment. And we're all guilty of that at times. Someone needs to sit her down and talk with her, not just once but often, and watch her. She needs a Big Sister, not an asshole prosecutor and a jail term.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 11:10 pm
@Debra Law,
Despotism.

Naked despotism.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 11:26 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
It seems to be something like "I dare you", and a thrill, and seeking attention at a point in life when almost any kind of attention is a desparate need, and peer pressure, and probably a kind of teen status in having the balls (well, you know what I mean...) to do it. Boys jump into the water in the quarry and kill themselves on the rocks below the water.
How is this an argument against law enforcement? Yes, kids do stupid, dangerous things to impress their peers. Some post illegal photos, some take illegal jumps, some steal cars, some take dangerous drugs, some heinously bully other kids, etc ad nauseum... so? How does "I dare you" make it better? How does trafficking in the heroin of perverts somehow less of a crime because someone dared you? Or if you're just being dumb or immature? The simple fact is; it is illegal. And most in this country believe it's illegal for good reason. If you actually read what this prosecutor has done; you'll see that he's trying to help the kids. There is no indication that he wants to hurt this girl or put her in jail. He's trying to dissuade other kids from doing stupid, illegal things. What's wrong with that?

Would you want your 15 year old to be peer-pressured into publishing nudies, that will no doubt find their way into the hands of sickos? Or, would you prefer she learns there’s a legal deterrent to doing stupid things like that? Kids will be kids, regardless, but this prosecutors actions are likely to do a hell of a lot more good than harm.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  6  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 11:53 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Responding to JTT, OCCOM BILL wrote:
As if anyone other than you and a perhaps a handful of idiots take you seriously. Hawkeye's been arguing for the right to screw kids since he showed up here and now you're going to go ahead and join him in agreement? . . . .


JTT was not embracing Hawkeye's views, JTT was addressing your statement that the prosecutor should be re-elected. The prosecutor is an asshole who issued a PRESS RELEASE concerning a confidential juvenile court matter. In this scenario, the prosecutor is the SICK BASTARD who is using a troubled "foster care" child (and how did the free press find out that confidential fact?) to pursue a cause that gets HIM a lot of attention. The way he went about this matter is outrageous.

You addressed JTT and said, "As if anyone other than you and a perhaps a handful of idiots take you seriously." Why would you say something this despicable? Do you take pleasure in saying the most hurtful thing that comes to your mind? Please don't answer--I don't want your answer. You can't seem to disagree with someone without becoming disagreeable (unpleasant and offensive). You're not very likeable right now and the horrible things you say to people are unacceptable.
roger
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 12:17 am
@Debra Law,
Very true, Debra.
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 12:21 am
re Bill, the law exists to prevent adults from taking advantage of minors sexually. To charge the girl, as a minor, with feloniously taking advantage of herself is simply ludicrous.

I agree with Debra: the prosecutor is clearly trying to blow this up. God save us from prosecutors up for re-election. The DA who harassed Jack Kevorkian for years, or the ass in Kansas who blizzarded subpoenas on abortion clinics (and who apparently lost his bid for state office as a result, good riddance) spring to mind. And this guy is another in the string.If you read his justification, he's incensed because he thinks she's doing it to defy him, how dare she!, when she probably was only thinking about how her social circle would react to the photos. What egocentricity on his part.. And he's clearly making an example of her, singling her out for doing what is pparently a widespread practice. Law doesn't exist to charge people with a crime for the purpose of using them as teaching aids. It exists to keep a civil society civil. He's abusing his power, and perverting what the law was meant to do.
Deckland
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 12:58 am
Has common sense ceased to exist ?
This is a 15 year old girl for goodness sakes.
Is there really a need for legal proceedings ?
What is the world coming to ? The prosecutor needs to go chase some real
criminals instead of a child who probably embarrassed herself beyond belief.
Will she do it again ? I doubt it ... That should be the end of the matter.
OCCOM BILL
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 01:09 am
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
You addressed JTT and said, "As if anyone other than you and a perhaps a handful of idiots take you seriously." Why would you say something this despicable? Do you take pleasure in saying the most hurtful thing that comes to your mind?
For Gawd's sake, Debra; did you read what the man said to me before I responded in kind? JTT has attacked me personally twice for every time I've ever bothered to respond to his trolling. That you and he happen to be in agreement about this prosecutor is no good reason to wear your blinders while reading his posts and condemning my in-kind responses to same.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 01:16 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

re Bill, the law exists to prevent adults from taking advantage of minors sexually. To charge the girl, as a minor, with feloniously taking advantage of herself is simply ludicrous.
Really? Would it be equally ludicrous to charge her with heroine possesion? Afterall, she's only hurting herself, right? Or is it possible that her actions aren't occurring in a vacuum and that she isn't the only one affected by them?

MontereyJack wrote:
I agree with Debra: the prosecutor is clearly trying to blow this up. God save us from prosecutors up for re-election. The DA who harassed Jack Kevorkian for years, or the ass in Kansas who blizzarded subpoenas on abortion clinics (and who apparently lost his bid for state office as a result, good riddance) spring to mind. And this guy is another in the string.If you read his justification, he's incensed because he thinks she's doing it to defy him, how dare she!, when she probably was only thinking about how her social circle would react to the photos. What egocentricity on his part.. And he's clearly making an example of her, singling her out for doing what is pparently a widespread practice. Law doesn't exist to charge people with a crime for the purpose of using them as teaching aids. It exists to keep a civil society civil. He's abusing his power, and perverting what the law was meant to do.
I'll happily concede that this is a reasonable point of view, but I completely disagree.

This prosecutor has gone out of his way to visit schools and make kids aware of the dangers and illegality of this behavior... before this case ever came up. Clearly, he believed he was doing a community service and I for one agree. He had no doubt received more than a few requests to try and reduce this illegal activity, and that was the path he chose. Seems pretty damned reasonable and benevolent to me.

This girl opted to test the law, even after a warning and got caught. What precisely is he supposed to do? Laws mean little without law enforcement and to do nothing would be akin to sending a message to all the students, in all the schools he visited, that he was just bluffing. Feel free to return to peer pressuring other students into breaking the law, because no one cares and nothing will be done. <-- That doesn't make sense.



Your "others do it to" argument has never been a defense to any crime I've ever heard of. Nor should it be. This kid is guilty of distributing material that is prohibited by law. I doubt you'd present a "others do it too" if she was sending her homegrown weed to her peers.

The public has a legitimate interest in curbing this illegal behavior and making examples of the guilty is hardly out of line. For all you or I know; the prosecutor wanted to first send the signal that this behavior will not be tolerated... and then plea it down to something treatment level.

You can disagree with my take and still find it a reasonable disagreement, I would think.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 01:37 am
@Deckland,
Deckland wrote:

Has common sense ceased to exist ?
This is a 15 year old girl for goodness sakes.
Is there really a need for legal proceedings ?
What is the world coming to ? The prosecutor needs to go chase some real
criminals instead of a child who probably embarrassed herself beyond belief.
Will she do it again ? I doubt it ... That should be the end of the matter.
Why not read what the prosecutor had to say before judging him? Link
The girl was warned during a school meeting set up to warn all students about the illegality of this behavior.

Then she was warned by the school administration, face to face, about it AGAIN.

Then she decided to do it again anyway.

I think too many people here are substituting their gut reactions for the law without fully thinking it through. If this girl can do it, then so can every boy who wants to show off his throbbing manhood to your daughter. Is that really what you want?
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 01:39 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
There is something major wrong here. What a 15 year old girl does should have no connection to child pornography laws.


I agree. The recent case comes out of Newark, Ohio. I've been doing some research and found that it is against the public policy of the State of Ohio for the State (by and through a prosecutor) to use a criminal statute that was intended to protect a certain class of persons (in this instance, minors) as the substantive basis for prosecuting a person in the protected class.

Charging a minor for the offense of "victimizing" herself (e.g., by possessing or viewing a nude picture of herself) would be similar to charging a minor with aiding and abetting her own statutory rape. This simply is NOT allowed--and yet, the prosecutor arranged to have the minor arrested on a Friday forcing her to be jailed for an entire weekend before she could be brought in front of a juvenile judge on a Monday. I think the prosecutor ought to be disciplined.
 

Related Topics

nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Is taking his picture legal? - Question by aquestion
JPMorgan Chase Civil Settlement - Discussion by jcboy
The Trial that JUST WON'T END - Question by michellesings
Can babies be a crime scene? - Question by boomerang
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
Hush Money - Question by gollum
Zimmerman/Martin Case Updates - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/31/2014 at 12:58:19