Teenage Girl: Sex Offender?

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

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.

Please post the link to where you got this nonsense. She didn't merely possess or view the picture; she distributed it to other kids. In doing so; she was not a victim of anything. She was the perpetrator.

Debra Law wrote:

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.

Tell me; do either of you think she's old enough to consent to do porn? If not; what laws do you think should cover that sort of thing?

1 Reply

The prosecutor's press release stated that the minor was charged with illegal use of minor in nudity-oriented material or performance for the taking, possessing, and/or sending of the photograph. Here's the statute under which she was charged:

Quote:

2907.323 Illegal use of minor in nudity-oriented material or performance.

[The Statututory Prohibitions]

(A) No person shall do any of the following:

(1) Photograph any minor who is not the person’s child or ward in a state of nudity, or create, direct, produce, or transfer any material or performance that shows the minor in a state of nudity, unless both of the following apply:

-----(a) The material or performance is, or is to be, sold, disseminated, displayed, possessed, controlled, brought or caused to be brought into this state, or presented for a bona fide artistic, medical, scientific, educational, religious, governmental, judicial, or other proper purpose, by or to a physician, psychologist, sociologist, scientist, teacher, person pursuing bona fide studies or research, librarian, clergyman, prosecutor, judge, or other person having a proper interest in the material or performance;

-----(b) The minor’s parents, guardian, or custodian consents in writing to the photographing of the minor, to the use of the minor in the material or performance, or to the transfer of the material and to the specific manner in which the material or performance is to be used.

(2) Consent to the photographing of the person’s minor child or ward, or photograph the person’s minor child or ward, in a state of nudity or consent to the use of the person’s minor child or ward in a state of nudity in any material or performance, or use or transfer a material or performance of that nature, unless the material or performance is sold, disseminated, displayed, possessed, controlled, brought or caused to be brought into this state, or presented for a bona fide artistic, medical, scientific, educational, religious, governmental, judicial, or other proper purpose, by or to a physician, psychologist, sociologist, scientist, teacher, person pursuing bona fide studies or research, librarian, clergyman, prosecutor, judge, or other person having a proper interest in the material or performance;

(3) Possess or view any material or performance that shows a minor who is not the person’s child or ward in a state of nudity, unless one of the following applies:

-----(a) The material or performance is sold, disseminated, displayed, possessed, controlled, brought or caused to be brought into this state, or presented for a bona fide artistic, medical, scientific, educational, religious, governmental, judicial, or other proper purpose, by or to a physician, psychologist, sociologist, scientist, teacher, person pursuing bona fide studies or research, librarian, clergyman, prosecutor, judge, or other person having a proper interest in the material or performance.

-----(b) The person knows that the parents, guardian, or custodian has consented in writing to the photographing or use of the minor in a state of nudity and to the manner in which the material or performance is used or transferred.

[The Statutory Penalties]

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of illegal use of a minor in a nudity-oriented material or performance. Whoever violates division (A)(1) or (2) of this section is guilty of a felony of the second degree. Whoever violates division (A)(3) of this section is guilty of a felony of the fifth degree. If the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of this section or section 2907.321 or 2907.322 of the Revised Code, illegal use of a minor in a nudity-oriented material or performance in violation of division (A)(3) of this section is a felony of the fourth degree.

Effective Date: 07-01-1996

The statute clearly contemplates that the offender will be a person other than the victim (minor) herself. For instance, if a statutory rape statute provided that any person who has sexual contact with a minor under the age of 16 is guilty of a felony, we would not arrest the minor for violating the statute if she masturbated (i.e., had sexual contact with herself). Apparently, according to the prosecutor, a minor cannot take a nude picture of herself without being a sex offender; a minor cannot possess a nude picture of herself without being a sex offender; and a minor cannot send a nude picture of herself (the victim) to a classmate without being a sex offender. And yet, if she gets naked and has consenual sex with her classmates--she can't be prosecuted.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

And here's the relevant portion of the Law, and the reason for the allegations:

Debra Law wrote:

The prosecutor's press release stated that the minor was charged with illegal use of minor in nudity-oriented material or performance for the taking, possessing, and/or sending of the photograph. Here's the statute under which she was charged:

Quote:

2907.323 Illegal use of minor in nudity-oriented material or performance.

[The Statututory Prohibitions]

(A) No person shall do any of the following:

(1) Photograph any minor who is not the person’s child or ward in a state of nudity, or create, direct, produce, or transfer any material or performance that shows the minor in a state of nudity, unless both of the following apply:

The statute clearly contemplates that the offender will be a person other than the victim (minor) herself.

No. It doesn't. Notice the word OR before "transfer any material" and the Prosecutors summarized "sending." Further, the legislators made no attempt to exclude anyone, save "physician, psychologist, sociologist, scientist, teacher, person pursuing bona fide studies or research, librarian, clergyman, prosecutor, judge, or other person having a proper interest in the material or performance" under certain conditions. Your imaginary exclusion may be something a Supreme Court could decide was in error, but it most certainly isn't the Law as written.

Debra Law wrote:

For instance, if a statutory rape statute provided that any person who has sexual contact with a minor under the age of 16 is guilty of a felony, we would not arrest the minor for violating the statute if she masturbated (i.e., had sexual contact with herself).

This is completely irrelevant. She wasn't charged with statutory rape and didn't send the picture to herself.

Debra Law wrote:

Apparently, according to the prosecutor, a minor cannot take a nude picture of herself without being a sex offender; a minor cannot possess a nude picture of herself without being a sex offender; and a minor cannot send a nude picture of herself (the victim) to a classmate without being a sex offender. And yet, if she gets naked and has consenual sex with her classmates--she can't be prosecuted.

Again, you are failing to read the law as written. The presence of the word "or" between the criteria that make up the crime should be interpreted as "any of these", not AND. If they had meant AND, they would have written AND. And again; your statutory rape example is completely irrelevant because she hasn't been charged with statutory rape. You can't make up conditions and exclusions because it suits you.

1 Reply

@Phoenix32890,

lol. hella girls i know got emotional problems then, hahaha.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
. . . 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....

Please post the link to where you got this nonsense.

Why should I provide you with a link? Just because you said "please," that doesn't diminish the insult that followed. There is case law available on the internet if you're interested in educating yourself. Here's a free source of searchable case law, but you must register (again, free of charge) to gain access.

http://www.lexisone.com/

Quote:

She didn't merely possess or view the picture; she distributed it to other kids. In doing so; she was not a victim of anything. She was the perpetrator.

According the prosecutor's press release, the minor was charged conjunctively and disjunctively with (1) possessing a nudity oriented picture of herself (the minor victim), (2) taking a nudity oriented picture of herself (the minor victim), and/or (3) sending a nudity oriented picture of herself (the minor victim). How can she be the perpetrator of the alleged offense when she, the minor, is the victim?

The particular statute under which the minor was charged protects the minor victim who is shown in the picture. The statute under which the minor was charged does not protect the RECIPIENTS of the picture. The minor was NOT charged with disseminating matter harmful to juveniles. If the "nudity oriented" photo of the minor was "patently offensive," the minor would have been charged differently. Here is the link to the Ohio Revised Code, Sex Offenses:

CHAPTER 2907: SEX OFFENSES
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907

Quote:

Tell me; do either of you think she's old enough to consent to do porn? If not; what laws do you think should cover that sort of thing?

And therein lies the rub. The law protects minors, regardless of their consent, because the law does not consider them competent enough to act in their own best interests. The law protects minors who may be exploited by others because they they are not competent to protect themselves. Thus, if a minor causes her own exploitation and the law recognizes that she is not competent to protect herself, it defies both logic and public policy to criminalize her conduct.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Notice the word OR before "transfer any material" and the Prosecutors summarized "sending."

transferring (or sending) any material depicting WHAT? with certain exceptions, any minor in a state of nudity.

What is the purpose of the law? to protect minors who would be victimized by other people.

The law was NOT intended to penalize a minor for taking, possessing, or sending a picture of herself. To read the statute any other way creates ABSURD results because it would brand a minor as a sex offender for merely taking or possessing a nudity oriented photo of herself. It defies logic to brand a person both the victim and the perpetrator of a crime. You have to read and interpret the statute as a whole--and you must avoid an interpretation that leads to ABSURD results. This is a basic canon of statutory interpretation:

“In expounding a statute, we must not be guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence, but look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy.” United States v. Boisdoré’s Heirs, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 113, 122 (1850).

If the prosecutor wanted to charge the minor as a perpetrator of a crime for disseminating material harmful to OTHER juveniles, the prosecutor would have charged her under a different statute. The prosecutor didn't do that. Thus, the nudity oriented photo at issue must NOT have been "harmful to juveniles" as defined by law.

Quote:

This is completely irrelevant. She wasn't charged with statutory rape and didn't send the picture to herself.

The relevance is in the object and policy underlying the statutes. Both the "statutory rape" statute and the "illegal use of minor in nudity-oriented material statute" serve to protect minors. One statute protects minors who are exploited sexually by OTHER persons, and the other statute protects minors who are exploited in nudity-oriented materials by OTHER people. Neither statute penalizes the minor who is exploited--even if the minor participates in her own exploitation.

Quote:

Again, you are failing to read the law as written. ...You can't make up conditions and exclusions because it suits you.

I am reading and interpreting the law as written. I'm not making up conditions and exclusions because it suits me. I'm applying basic canons of statutory interpretation. See above.

It is a violation of due process to convict a person of a nonexistent crime. It is legally impossible for a minor to perpetrate a sex offense upon herself. The same as a teenage girl is not a sex offender because she intimately touches herself, a teenage girl is not a sex offender simply because she takes a nudity-oriented photograph of herself. A teenage girl is not a sex offender simply because she possesses a nudity oriented photo of herself. Thus, reading the statute as a whole and avoiding absurd results, she is not a sex offender by sending a nudity-oriented photo of herself to a third party when the statute's purpose is to protect minors who are shown in the photo (and not third parties). The minor at issue was charged with a nonexistent offense--perpetrating a sex offense upon herself (the alleged minor victim)--in violation of the due process clause.

0 Replies

I vaguely remember a case ( I don 't remember which jurisdiction )
of some guy being arrested at a film developing place,
for submitting pictures of a nude kid.

It turned out that he had used a tripod & mirrors to take pictures of himself
several years before.

When we created government
we did not endow it with such jurisdiction
as to interfere with us like this. We shoud have created
a scheme to PUNISH officers of government
who violate our freedom like this, and put THAT into the Constitution,
just between free speech and the right to bear arms

David

0 Replies

This is another Mike Nifong in action.

The job of District Attorney involves nearly infinite power and next to nothing in the way of accountability and is a natural magnet for psychopaths. The job itself needs to be abolished along with the so-called "adversarial" system of justice. NOBODY should ever have any sort of a career or money incentive to put anybody else in prison. We need to adopt the inquisitorial system which you see in France and other countries; our entire present justice system is FUBAR.

0 Replies

Pretty much what I'd expect from a student at a school called "Licking Valley."

Aside from that, tho, first that that occurred to me is why we're hearing about this. "HEY! EVERYBODY! NEKKID PICTURES OF A 15-YEAR OLD GIRL OVER HERE!" I just hope that when they talk about prosecuting it as a sex crime that they're not talking about charging as an adult, where she's got to spend the rest of her life registering every time she moves and, in some locales, going door-to-door to announce her dangerous presence...

1 Reply

@patiodog,

It's just a ramping up of non-productive jobs with the names of the beneficiaries in all the papers posing as saints and guardians of our morals and a nice little earner for the legal profession.

The schoolies here sell their foxed-up knickers on ebay.

0 Replies

If somebody tries to commit suicide and fails in the attempt, do you charge them with attempted murder? Particularly if they're a minor? That would be absurd, but that's what the prosecutor is doing.

1 Reply

Gosh.
It wasnt that long ago I was a teenager and guess what?
Since cell phones were not invented, we just went into the bathrooms to see each other naked. No biggie.
Kids do that .

I think the felony is a bit much. They are screwing her entire life for doing something ALL KIDS have done. Which is look at another kid with no clothes on. SO. WHAT.

Im feeling that this society is a bit too uptight about sexual behavior and children. We are born sexual beings. This Puritan attitude of freaking out when a child shows some kind of sexual behavior is odd.
No, she shouldnt be plastering photos of herself everywhere. Yes. that may be a cry for some kind of help. Send her to a therapist. Let her work out those issues. But the totally healthy teenager is NOT ONE who does NOT show any interest in sex, the opposite ( or same) sex.

Too many law makers, police officers and prosecutors hand out that felony charge like candy. She is a KID and does not need to be labeled as dangerous for the rest of her life.
I was a wild teenager. Naked? Me? In public? You betcha . Many times. Should I be a felon for the rest of my life for it ?

Do you KNOW what felons go through?
Lets start with basics-
Forget easily getting a job. Just , forget it.
Also forget RENTING. most companies can legally deny you a place to rent because of your "felony history" no matter how long ago it was.
Forget privacy. People can find you on the internet now.
Forget school grants/assistance. You can not get most help to go to school because of having a felony.
Forget public assistance in most states. Felons are denied that.

So.. can YOU live with those stipulations for the rest of YOUR life?
How equal is that? she took her clothes off as a teen, as an adult she can not survive in a normal society because she can not work, can not rent and can not get assistance.

2 Replies

@NickFun,

NickFun wrote:

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!

OMG! You pervert! You shock me, totally SHOCK me, NF! You?? Wow!

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

To me, it sounded much more like the prosecutor was PUBLICIZING this CONFIDENTIAL juvenile court matter, in violation of the rules of professional conduct, as his cause celeb--after all, he is running for re-election--and this defiant girl who is currently living in foster care--who needs an "attitude" adjustment--was ripe for the picking....

http://www.oswaltforprosecutor.com/

The more I dig and read, the more troubling this becomes.

As usual, the more information comes to light, the better we're able to judge for ourselves. All I've read is what has been posted here, and I took it that he was discussing this issue because he was being criticized for the heavy charge they're considering laying on her. I thought he was explaining his actions, and if that is the case, and what he's saying is fact, then I think he is being reasonable.

However, that said, I think too much is being made of this. America seems to be quite puritanical and overreacting to just about everything. I mean, when you read about 5 yr olds being suspended for hugging or kissing their teacher or another classmate - Good Lord. Everybody needs to calm down.

Reminds me of the play Oleanna... and the case of the swim coach at Simon Fraser University being falsely accused of sexual harrassment by a team member (Rachel something). As more information came to light, it was discovered she had been stalking him etc etc etc. A public hue and cry ensued, sanity prevailed at the higher levels, and all charges against him were dropped and he was reinstated as Coach. She wasn't even charged with perjury or stalking or anything.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

A teenage boy sending nude pics of himself to friends from his cellphone? The scenario is a lot harder to imagine (which is an interesting subject in itself), but the whole idea that these kids should be prosecuted for that kind of thing strikes me as patently absurd. But younno, I'm one of those decadent Europeans..

I remember when I was in high school I had this friend who had this boyfriend who made this series of photos of her. She showed them round, they were very cool, they included a couple of nudes one too. Some of us asked for copies of some of the photos, I got about ten, including a nude one. All of 'em were pretty effin' cool. Guess she should have been prosecuted, or he should have been, or god knows what the logic there is Shocked

0 Replies

@shewolfnm,

somehow someway they are trying to get money.

its not uptightness LOL.

0 Replies

@shewolfnm,

damn after reading that list you can obviously tell they wish criminals to remain criminals. period.

O_o always a scary realization.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Well, regardless of what the law is down there, I don't believe she's a VICTIM, nor do I think she's a sex offender. And I don't think this is child pornography. She is a teenager who got a thrill from doing something naughty.

I certainly would charge her with something minor and put her in counselling. She was warned again and again and she ignored them. She needs to pay the consequences of her actions. But it needn't be juvy.

And I have no idea what's behind the prosecutor's actions (motivation). If he didn't name names, he didn't do anything wrong in publicizing this case.

The other point is, if there's a wave of this behaviour going around, why aren't the others being charged?

A while ago I read that high school girls weren't engaging in sex but they were "servicing" the boys at school by fellatio. Why wasn't a hue and cry made about that? That's 'worse' than sending nude pics of yourself about.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Whatever emotional issues the girl may have need not be mutually exclusive from law enforcement.

Whatever emotional issues the girl may have had before, I dont even wanna imagine what they'll be like after she was thrown into jail and her case was smeared all over the region's newspapers ... because she sent some pics of herself to her schoolmates. Jesus. Sorry, but yours is a f*cked up country sometimes.

Debra Law wrote:

To me, it sounded much more like the prosecutor was PUBLICIZING this CONFIDENTIAL juvenile court matter, in violation of the rules of professional conduct, as his cause celeb--after all, he is running for re-election--and this defiant girl who is currently living in foster care--who needs an "attitude" adjustment--was ripe for the picking.... [..]

The more I dig and read, the more troubling this becomes.

Sounds just about right. Outrageous.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

[quote="MontereyJack" 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.
[/quote]
Damn right.

1 Reply

Teenage Girl: Sex Offender?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know