23
   

Teenage Girl: Sex Offender?

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Oct, 2008 02:37 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Still just ignoring the question that renders your entire bogus argument mute, I see.
OCCOM BILL wrote:
You on the other hand have lied by repeatedly pretending you've answered this question while repeatedly failing to do so:

Quote:
You still haven't answered why 2907.323 continues to apply long after a minor becomes an adult or perishes. Why? Because it is obvious that legislative intent extends beyond protecting the minor[s] depicted.
The simple truth here is still not going away.


Again, YOU are lying. I have REPEATEDLY responded to your spurious argument. The state may criminalize the production, distribution, and possession of pornographic materials IF the materials depict a real life CHILD who was sexually abused during the production. The sexually abused or exploited CHILD is the victim of a crime and the photographic material records that crime.

You argued that the legislature may criminalize pornography for a purpose other than protecting the victims who were depicted in the material. You argued that the legislature may criminalize pornography so that potential pedophiles cannot use the material as a means to seduce possible victims. Your argument was expressly REJECTED by the Supreme Court in the Ashcroft case. The simple truth is that the Ashcroft case is NOT going away.

You continue to cling to mere dicta in the Osborne case and you misapply it in order to support your erroneous argument. You ignore the constitutional basis for the holding in Osborne, and you repeatedly duck the holding in the Ashcroft case. YOUR entire argument is BOGUS. Your efforts to put your shoe on my foot are unavailing.
Laughing You still haven't answered the question. If the child depicted is no longer alive; she couldn't possibly continue to need protection. The only thing Ashcroft vs. free speech coalition proves is that the offending image needs to be a real child (as opposed to a computer generated child or a young looking adult). Nowhere does it state that protecting that "real child" is the sole purpose of 2907.323. That stipulation exists only in your imagination.

The Supreme Court's decision in Osborne left no doubt that the purpose of 2907.323 is to eradicate child pornography. That a real child need be depicted in said pornography in no way implies, let alone mandates, that protecting that child alone is the sole consideration. That is pure bullshit that exists only in your mind.

Your argument that the statute requires a specific victim is bullshit in general. It requires only that a real child is depicted, but doesn't even require said child's identification. It matters not at all if that child is still living or dead, because protecting that particular child is NOT the sole purpose of the statute.

Your imaginative implication that a victim need be present for a crime to take place is nonsense. There are plenty of crimes that assume a societal harm, that are nonetheless not dependent upon a particular victim. Drug possession is routinely prosecuted with NO VICTIM, for instance. That a real child need be depicted Not Equal that said real child has to be considered the victim of the offending crime. He who merely possesses child porn has in no way directly victimized the child depicted. He is still prosecuted under 2907.323 regardless of whether or not that child is aware of his possession, or indeed, is even still alive.

Your assumption that 2907.323 cannot be applied to a 15 year old offender, without calling her a victim is nonsense. That she happens to be the minor depicted, in no way exempts her from prosecution for violating the still applicable offenses under 2907.323. Her image satisfies the requirement that a "real child" is depicted, but the statute in no way attempts to exempt her from prosecution because of it.

Watch: A 15 year old boy could legally take a picture of his erect penis without committing a crime. This act alone is no one’s business and he most certainly isn’t a victim. If, however, he sent that picture to a girl in Ohio; he would nonetheless be guilty of violating 2907.323 for creating, possessing and transferring an image that violated the statute. It would be absurd to call him a victim; but it would hardly be absurd to claim he violated 2907.323 (even though he is the person depicted)… because that is precisely what he would have done. Does the public have a legitimate interest in applying the applicable statute(s) to a 15 year old boy for doing so? Of course it does… and that is precisely what the prosecutor is doing and probably why.

Pretending you're an attorney; pretending the Supreme Court's vividly clear conclusions don't matter; pretending my quoting of applicable Supreme Court precedents constitutes lying; serves mostly to make you look like a fool. Were you correct; the presiding judge would throw the case out of court. Any evidence that this has happened? Of course not.

Just as in the case of Joe Horn; you misinterpreted the applicable statute based on your emotional, instinctual, response. Legally, you are just as wrong... and this will be demonstrated, again, in due time. Watch.
OCCOM BILL
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Oct, 2008 02:45 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
Nothing could be more irrelevant when discussing Kiddie-porn laws.


Why do you keep on conflating "kiddie porn" with a 15 year old who may well be almost 16 and, as I've said, fully developed biologically and has probably been watching late night TV and maybe surfing the net. And she may well be precocious. Probably is.
2907.323 recognizes kids as 17 and under: hence, Kiddie-Porn.

spendius wrote:
Are you scared of putting Media in the frame Bill?
Media considerations are wholly irrelevant when assessing 2907.323.
Debra Law
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Oct, 2008 03:49 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Occom Bill wrote:
Dlowan has repeatedly, painstakingly, demonstrated that a 15 year old's brain is not fully developed... and decency demands that adults recognize this simple matter of fact.


This is very hypocritical of YOU to claim that it is indecent for Spendius to ignore this matter, and yet YOU ignore this very same matter when you argue the Ohio 15-year-old must be prosecuted for a sex offense, i.e., the "illegal use" of herself. As a matter of law, the minor who is depicted in the nudity-oriented material is the victim.

The entire purpose of protecting child victims of pornography is the fact that they are incapable, as a matter of law, of protecting themselves. They are easily exploited and are often complicit in their own exploitation. They fall victim to pressure. They are easily manipulated and are eager to please. Those who engage in self-exploitation or willingly participate in their exploitation do not perceive the risks involved nor the harmful consequences. Chalk that up to the fact that they are not fully-developed human beings and they need to be protected--not persecuted nor prosecuted. That's a major reason why it violates public policy to prosecute a victim under the very statute that was enacted to protect her.

Also, we cannot escape the disconnect between the statute under discussion and the age of consent. In the State of Ohio, a minor aged 16 may legally consent to engage in sex with anyone she wants or with as many people as she wants regardless of their age. A teenager (age 13-15) under the age of consent may "willingly" engage in sex with anyone he/she wants so long as his/her partner is not an adult (age 18 or older). Ohio R.C. Section 2907.04. In other words, the law does not penalize Juliet or Romeo for age-inappropriate sexual conduct. And yet, a 15-year-old girl is charged with a felony sex offense for taking a nude photo of herself and sharing it with her teenage friends? Absurd!

Again, the prosecutor said the following:

"There's a totally false perception among juveniles that there is no risk to this," Oswalt told ABCNews.com. "That picture, once taken and sent, gives anyone who receives it the ability to do anything with it, forever. If a picture of you found its way onto the Internet, that's going to haunt you, potentially forever."

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5995084&page=1

In other words, due to her youth and undeveloped brain and social acumen, the girl was incapable of perceiving the risk. So that justifies prosecuting her for a sex offense? the crime of victimizing herself? Absurd!

Hypocrit! Heal thyself!

NickFun
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Oct, 2008 03:54 pm
@Debra Law,
In Hawaii and Idaho the age of consent is 14. In California it's 18. Are the Hawaiian and Idaho girls so much more mature?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Oct, 2008 04:21 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
I have already said that if every law was interpreted and enforced to the letter the whole joint would be in chaos in a day. That is because words are insufficient to define human behaviour.

The idea that an early developer aged 16 years 11 months and 20 odd days is a kiddie in this day and age is ridiculous. Checkov would have made a nice short story out of this lot. With the lass ending up on death row.

Why has this particular prosecutor picked this one out for pedantic interpretation.

(Answers on a postcard please.)
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 21 Oct, 2008 05:30 pm
@spendius,
If you read The Bible carefully Bill you will see something of a glowing reference to the "joints of the thighs". It's in The Song of Solomon. And he was supposed to be very wise.

Had the pictorial transmission with which we are concerned only exhibited the joints of the young lass's thighs with a bit of rag covering the pooter-pie would the prosecutor still have a case under the law you are standing your dignity upon?
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Oct, 2008 05:33 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Laughing You still haven't answered the question. If the child depicted is no longer alive; she couldn't possibly continue to need protection.


That's like saying a murder victim must be denied justice because the murder victim is no longer alive. Absurd! Pornographic material is criminalized because it records a crime: the sexual abuse of a minor. The victim is entitled to justice; she is entitled to the protection of the law. That protection includes punishing not only the producers of the depicted crime, but also the distributors and consumers of the depicted crime. I know you don't understand that simple fact, but that is YOUR problem.

Occom Bill wrote:
The only thing Ashcroft vs. free speech coalition proves is that the offending image needs to be a real child (as opposed to a computer generated child or a young looking adult). Nowhere does it state that protecting that "real child" is the sole purpose of 2907.323. That stipulation exists only in your imagination. The Supreme Court's decision in Osborne left no doubt that the purpose of 2907.323 is to eradicate child pornography. That a real child need be depicted in said pornography in no way implies, let alone mandates, that protecting that child alone is the sole consideration. That is pure bullshit that exists only in your mind.


Both Osborne and Ashcroft made it clear that pornography is expression that is protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Both cases made it clear that the ONLY reason why CHILD pornography may be criminalized is because it records a crime--the sexual abuse of a real life child. Because the State has a compelling interest in protecting VICTIMS of child pornography, the State criminalize not only its production and distribution--but also its possession.

What OTHER purpose/government interest do you suggest the statute serves? Does that purpose/government interest pass constitutional muster? Because your concern that pornography might be misused by pedophiles to seduce children was REJECTED by the Supreme Court. The government cannot ban pornography, nor video games or candy, because the government fears those items might be misused by someone who might commit a crime. The government cannot, consistent with the constitution, "eradicate" whatever it wants just because it wants to. The "eradication" must be necessary to serve a compelling government interest. Thus, your continued song and dance that "the purpose of 2907.323 is to eradicate child pornography" means nothing. It simply begs the question: WHY does the State want to eradicate child pornography?

And there we go back to the beginning: BECAUSE child pornography records a crime: the sexual abuse of a minor.

You keep spinning your tires in the same old tired circle.



Occom Bill wrote:
Your argument that the statute requires a specific victim is bullshit in general. It requires only that a real child is depicted, but doesn't even require said child's identification. It matters not at all if that child is still living or dead, because protecting that particular child is NOT the sole purpose of the statute.


We might not be able to identify the child, but the child was abused, and the pornographic material has recorded that crime. That child, whoever he/she may be is entitled to justice--and all persons who facilitated that criminal abuse of a child either by producing the record, distributing the record, or by possessing and viewing the record, may be held criminally responsible.

The fact that people who are prosecuted are being prosecuted for "illegal use of a minor" seems to escape your comprehension. Living, dead, or aged, the victim who was misused in violation of the law is entitled to justice.

Quote:
Your imaginative implication that a victim need be present for a crime to take place is nonsense.


How can you sexually abuse a child if the child is not present? The reason why child pornography may be criminalized consistent with the constitution is because it records a crime.


Quote:
There are plenty of crimes that assume a societal harm, that are nonetheless not dependent upon a particular victim. Drug possession is routinely prosecuted with NO VICTIM, for instance. That a real child need be depicted Not Equal that said real child has to be considered the victim of the offending crime. He who merely possesses child porn has in no way directly victimized the child depicted. He is still prosecuted under 2907.323 regardless of whether or not that child is aware of his possession, or indeed, is even still alive.


The production, distribution, and possession of child pornography isn't one of those crimes that "assume a societal harm." After all, virtual child pornography is legal. So is pornography that uses a 19-year-old girl who looks like a 13-year-old girl. If we assume a societal harm with pornography that uses a real child, why not assume the same with pornography that uses an adult that looks like a child or pornography that uses a virtual child?

The Osborne case TELLS you WHY possessors may be punished. If they weren't willing to possess and view the material, the sexual abuse of the child victim that was recorded for their consumption would not have happened.


Quote:
Your assumption that 2907.323 cannot be applied to a 15 year old offender, without calling her a victim is nonsense. That she happens to be the minor depicted, in no way exempts her from prosecution for violating the still applicable offenses under 2907.323. Her image satisfies the requirement that a "real child" is depicted, but the statute in no way attempts to exempt her from prosecution because of it.


I'm not assuming anything. The law itself calls her the victim. The law itself contemplates an offender and a victim. She, the victim, cannot be charged with victimizing herself.

Quote:
Watch: A 15 year old boy could legally take a picture of his erect penis without committing a crime. This act alone is no one’s business and he most certainly isn’t a victim. If, however, he sent that picture to a girl in Ohio; he would nonetheless be guilty of violating 2907.323 for creating, possessing and transferring an image that violated the statute.


He cannot be prosecuted under 2907.323 for victimizing himself. On the other hand, if the picture of his erect penis is obscene or harmful to juveniles as defined by law, he can be prosecuted under 2907.31.

Quote:
Pretending you're an attorney; pretending the Supreme Court's vividly clear conclusions don't matter; pretending my quoting of applicable Supreme Court precedents constitutes lying; serves mostly to make you look like a fool. Were you correct; the presiding judge would throw the case out of court. Any evidence that this has happened? Of course not.


Absolutely, that Juris Doctor Degree that I have hanging on my wall and all the hours and years of my life that I spend researching the law and helping people means absolutely NOTHING if I'm the fickin' brainless moron that you paint me to be. Apparently, I have no right to enjoy my retirement or to waste my time by posting on a discussion board about anything that I might know something about. I guess, people who post on Able2Know don't have to know anything they're talking about. You've proven that!

But, I'm NOT the one who has misread and misinterpreted the law. That would be YOU, the failed cheesehead restauranteur from Wisconsin.


Occom Bill wrote:
Just as in the case of Joe Horn; you misinterpreted the applicable statute based on your emotional, instinctual, response. Legally, you are just as wrong... and this will be demonstrated, again, in due time. Watch.


Joe Horn ran out of his house to shoot two burglars (who were burglarizing the house next door) in the their backs as they were running away. Self defense at its best! I admit that I didn't know that the penalty for burglary was summary execution.

The prosecutor in Ohio misapplied R.C. Section 2907.323. The girl lives in foster care and is virtually helpless. Hopefully, she will have a court-appointed attorney who will give her case more than 2 minutes. But I'm not holding my breath. I'm not confident that justice will be done in this case--not because the law isn't on the girl's side--but because I don't know if she will be blessed with effective assistance of counsel. In that regard, the odds are against her. If you have the name and address of her counsel, send him a link to this discussion. I'm sure he will appreciate your take on the law.


spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Oct, 2008 05:44 pm
Is that right Bill? That you're a-

Quote:
failed cheesehead restauranteur from Wisconsin.


BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 04:48 pm
@Debra Law,
You know it more then likely that the DA office selected this girl because the DA figure it is very unlikely that she could mount a defense and will just plea bargain out in some manner.

Hopefully someone like the Play Boy Defense fund or the ACLU or even a private law firm will see this as a crazy injustice and provide her wihtha solid defence team.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 04:55 pm
@BillRM,
I think Debra should get over there and make a name for herself in legal circles specialising in injustices to the sisterhood.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 06:39 pm
@spendius,
Spendius I don't what Debra will or will not do but this is beyond an injustices to women rights, this is an injustice aim at a defenseless child of whatever sex.

What to stop this fool of a DA from arresting the boyfriends of the girls who had received those pictures?



0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 07:12 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
You know it more then likely that the DA office selected this girl because the DA figure it is very unlikely that she could mount a defense and will just plea bargain out in some manner.


that is certainly a claim made by many....something about her not having parents or others close in her life to protect her. I think that this DA is slime on legal grounds so it would come as no surprise to me that he is also personally slime, one who would try to advance his career on the back of a young person who is likely not to be able to object in a way that could hurt him.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 07:21 pm
I think the exploiter, i.e., the girl, should be sentenced to pay hefty punitive damages to the exploitee, i.e., the girl.

I also think the county prosecutor wants to be state prosecutor someday, and is using this as a trophy case.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Oct, 2008 08:33 am
The general gist here is that the prosecutor is a child abuser.
0 Replies
 
DixiePup
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2008 07:37 pm
@Debra Law,
What about the PARENTS??!!!! I think to an extent you have to be aware of your childs actions. If you are going to give a cell phone with a camera phone in it maybe you should know if you child is responsible enough for that responsibility. I think this girl has problems but needs help at this point. I don't think she is a sex offender more just a lost child who needs supervision and better parenting.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2008 09:26 pm
@DixiePup,
The girl in question do not have a parent in her life she is in state care!
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 12:06 am
@DixiePup,
DixiePup wrote:

What about the PARENTS??!!!! I think to an extent you have to be aware of your childs actions. If you are going to give a cell phone with a camera phone in it maybe you should know if you child is responsible enough for that responsibility. I think this girl has problems but needs help at this point. I don't think she is a sex offender more just a lost child who needs supervision and better parenting.


The girl is being parented by the State of Ohio. She is in foster care. Her foster care parents are paid by the state to provide parental supervision. The state, having taken custody of this child, failed to do right by this girl--in more ways than one.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 02:26 pm
@spendius,
Okay: Time to put this matter to bed:

A. Contrary to popular opinion, here, The DA was NOT trying to make a name for himself with this prosecution. He, in fact, went further out of his way to warn the violators of this statute than any other DA I'm aware of. This is evidenced by his choice to tour the county educating kids, rather than prosecuting complaints... and finally by his decision to quietly settle the matter for a lesser charge... EXACTLY as I predicted.

B. It should be obvious that he did not flaunt the law by the SC opinions I already provided... but also by the simple fact that the Judge didn't throw the case out in the first place. Even the least competent Public Defender would have successfully moved for an immediate dismissal if Debra had a clue what she was talking about. If the exceptions to the statute she sought, were intended; they would have been written into the statute in the first place. Failure to do so would have rendered the statute unconstitutionally vague. Contrarily; the Statute survived scrutiny by the SC of the land and remains intact.

C. Just as in the case of Joe Horn; the Law is quite clear... but emotional responses cloud the judgment of those who oppose the application of the statute as written. Most civilized people, and indeed most jurisdictions, consider leaving your house to put a bullet in a thief illegal. Texas, on the other hand, allows this to protect property. While morally repugnant to most; Joe Horn's actions were none the less legally permissible in the state of Texas.

While this prosecutor’s charges may have seemed too extreme in a common sense sense to many; they were nonetheless proscribed by the Ohio Statutes.

Conclusion: The prosecutor sent a firm message of deterrent against illegal behavior, provided credibility to his earlier warnings, and settled the matter as quietly and dignified as is reasonable in a country that celebrates a free press. The man deserves a pat on the back for doing his job.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/teen-girl-faces.html

Ps.
spendius wrote:

Is that right Bill? That you're a-

Quote:
failed cheesehead restauranteur from Wisconsin.

Yes. That is accurate.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 06:36 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
Ps.
spendius wrote:

Is that right Bill? That you're a-

Quote:
failed cheesehead restauranteur from Wisconsin.
Yes. That is accurate.


It's having too much faith in the letter of the law. Did you not try topless waitresses.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 03:06 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Sorry but I and others don't care how many times you repeat your position, the law should not be apply to a girl who send a picture of herself to a boyfriend.

If the young lady would had sold her body in the hallways of her school she would have been charge with a misdeeemor and yet you are somehow claiming it is a good idea to charge her with a high grade felony for sending a picture to a boyfriend!

This is complete nonsense of the worst kind as it causing harm to a young lady who is already behind the eight ball growing up in state care.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/28/2022 at 07:18:40