Teenage Girl: Sex Offender?

@BillRM,

You "and others" can remain ignorant for as long as you choose (or not!) That the Law isn't your ideal is well understood, and is quite understandable, but it is the Law. And, btw, the girl didn't just "send pictures to her boyfriend", the "charge" was a low grade felony, and has already been reduced in an agreement that doesn't require sex offender listing... exactly as I predicted. And, the fact that she is in fostercare is utterly irrelevant. (This is a fallacious Argumentum ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to pity); that has no place in a debate about the written law.) Again, it is well understood that many, or perhaps even most, disagree with the law. That's fine, but it doesn't change what the law actually is.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

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.

What proof do you have that the prosecutor decided to quietly settle the matter for a lesser charge? Your link from Wired Blog Network only states the following:

"This week the girl, a student at Licking Valley High School in Newark, Ohio, reached an undisclosed agreement with prosecutors to resolve the case."

You're jumping to a lot of unsubstantiated conclusions based on some alleged UNDISCLOSED AGREEMENT. Most likely, the prosecutor agreed to drop the charges to ward off a civil rights lawsuit against the state. The more you misinterpret and misapply the law in your misguided effort to support the prosecutor's abuse of power, the more convinced I am that he needs to lose his law license. He has done far more damage than just persecute one Ohio State foster care child. He has made minor victims throughout the entire nation afraid to report REAL perpetrators of sex crimes to the police for fear that they too will be prosecuted.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Imaginative idiocy. NOTHING you predicted took place. NOTHING. If there were a shot at a civil suit, there still is, you clueless phony.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

I can't understand this. It's her pooter isn't it? Can she not show it to anyone she wants? Darwin would have laughed himself off his horse at the idea that she couldn't.

Are you sure you're an scientific evolutionist Bill like those ladies on the school boards who only want proper science in biology classes? Is it a pose?

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

The LAW is not the direct word of god but is part of the social contract and if a law or the way someone is misapplying it cause outrage among the citizens of this republic then it the law in question that must go or at least it must be rewritten so it can not cause harm to victims by having fools in power misapplying it.

Until the legislator can get around to rewriting the law the courts and public have a duty to act together to block injustices from occurring.

The public by voting out of office the fool who would cause harm to a young lady for no good reason and in the case of a jury trial jury nullification.

At some point down the road if the law code for whatever reason get so unjust it is causing more harm then good to a society and there is no other way to address the problem you turn to the Declaration of Independence and overthrow the government in question by force if need be.

The LAW only have moral weight behind if it have the support of the people and this misapplying of law seem to only have your support behind it.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I can't understand this. It's her pooter isn't it? Can she not show it to anyone she wants?

No, she can't and I'm going to ignore you if you don't stop acting like you don't understand simple English. No one, of any age, has the right to take and distribute nudie pics of kids accept for very few exceptions (none of which apply here.) Address your philosophical disagreement with someone who gives a ****. I am simply debating the law of the state of Ohio. NOT YOUR FUCKED UP POINT OF VIEW THAT KIDS SHOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE INFORMED CONSENT AND IGNORE THE LAW WHERE OTHER KIDS ARE CONCERNED.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

The LAW is not the direct word of god but is part of the social contract and if a law or the way someone is misapplying it cause outrage among the citizens of this republic then it the law in question that must go or at least it must be rewritten so it can not cause harm to victims by having fools in power misapplying it.

Outside of a few posters here and elsewhere on the internet and a law-suit where the ACLU objects to a portion of the Adam Walsh addition as double jeopardy on sickoes, I've seen very little outrage. "Misapplication" is your poorly informed opinion, probably based largely on the (phony wannabe attorney's); and has no real foundation in actual law or any proceedings whatsoever. Object? By all means let your voice be heard; but don't expect to get away with pretending the Law is being misapplied just because you don’t like it… unless and until you can fortify that opinion with fact. NO ONE here has done so.

Btw, the Adam Walsh act specifically stipulates that a Judge can decide whether 14 or 15 year old offender of this statute should have to register as a sex offender. YES: the Law recognizes that those not yet old enough to give informed consent are nonetheless responsible to follow the applicable law or face charges that are not terribly modified by the age of the offender. It doesn’t matter if you agree; this is the Law.

BillRM wrote:

Until the legislator can get around to rewriting the law the courts and public have a duty to act together to block injustices from occurring.

Does it occur to you that the "courts" have done no such thing? It stands to reason that it would be news if the Ohio court agreed with Debra's bizarre screed that the Law was being misapplied. One would think there would be a line of real attorney's volunteering to take the case Pro-Bono for the sake of name recognition if such a gross misapplication/injustice were actually taking place. It isn't.

BillRM wrote:

The public by voting out of office the fool who would cause harm to a young lady for no good reason and in the case of a jury trial jury nullification.

Assuming "The public" agrees with your demented point of view; they may very well vote him out. I tend to doubt it. They would have ZERO authority to nullify a jury trial, and no such trial has or will be taking place in this case.

BillRM wrote:

At some point down the road if the law code for whatever reason get so unjust it is causing more harm then good to a society and there is no other way to address the problem you turn to the Declaration of Independence and overthrow the government in question by force if need be.

Take your meds, dude.

BillRM wrote:

The LAW only have moral weight behind if it have the support of the people and this misapplying of law seem to only have your support behind it.

What does this idiotic statement even mean? The Law in Ohio couldn't possibly care less what you or I think, and its enforcement has zero to do our opinions. Think before posting such ridiculous conclusions.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

The law is not suppose to be used as a tool to abuse children period end of subject.

Yes I am aware that there will not be a jury trial in a case hear in the so call juvenile justice system and that is a shame as it remove one very important safe guard indeed.

You had never hear of jury nullication by the way Bill? Anyway this case cried out for nullication.

Jury nullication is where citizens in a jury room refused to apply an unjust law and the judge instructions and that have been going on since the beginning of the jury system and another term for it is jury pardons.

Judges don’t normally tell the jury that they have a common law right to do so but there are likely someone in any jury room that is aware of the concept of nullication in any given jury.

Off hand I do think that in one state at least it is a requirement to tell the jury that they can act as more then a finder of facts and perhaps I will google it.

A fast check don’t give a name of a state that force a judge to inform a jury of this right however Wikipeda have a fairly large section on the subject.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Dude;
A. You need to realize that opinions vary on whether or not the prosecutor behaved properly or improperly. Your opinion that he used his power to "abuse children" is your own, and while I disagree and seriously doubt it is a prevalent opinion (there is no evidence to suggest it is), that has nothing to do with what I’ve debated here. I have no interest in debating what the law should be, rather, I’ve demonstrated what it actually is.
B. You seem to be assuming the kid wasn't entitled to a jury trial... which is utterly and completely false. The reason there won't be a jury trial in this case is because the case has already been settled.
C. While a jury could certainly ignore any portion of the law they saw fit; such an event would alter no portion of my argument whatsoever. I've repeatedly restated that I was arguing what the Law is; NOT WHETHER OR NOT IT IS JUST. I disagree with those who think the application of this law was out of line; but that is not the debate I've been carrying out here. Put simply: On that we disagree; so be it. I have no problem with that until fantastic definitions of the actual law are presented, which are clearly false.

3 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Well Bill- all the intellectuals here thought that Mrs Whitehouse had the dirtiest mind in the country.

In order to find evidence for the evils of strippers in cabaret Lord Longford spent many an evening at shows on the continent doing his research. There were jokes about him keeping his small change in his left hand trouser pocket.

We have a tendency to suspect the motives of those who are outraged at some little triviality, such as the principle subject of this thread, and all the discussions it has caused and no doubt will cause. And maybe, who knows, it will all inspire many further manifestations of a similar type and thus lead to more discussions of the subject.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

While a jury could certainly ignore any portion of the law they saw fit; such an event would alter no portion of my argument whatsoever. I've repeatedly restated that I was arguing what the Law is; NOT WHETHER OR NOT IT IS JUST

the are many laws that are ignored universally by the public, the DA's, and the judges, so litteral reading of the statutes is not very informative. The use of disused law against an individual suffers from legitimacy issues, and likewise does using law in a away that widely deviates from peer usage. A DA should need a very good reason to do something that his peers do not do, in this case prosecuting a young woman for distrubuting pics of herself.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

You know the last time I check it is still on the law books in my state that an unmarried couple living together in open sin, is a crime.

Now how is what the DA did to that young lady any difference then if a DA looking for the votes of the God fearing right wing, pick a poor couple out to be drag off to jail in the middle of the night under such a charge?

Millions of couples openly breaking this law in my state from all backgrounds yet just somehow the DA pick on a couple that is unlikely to be able to put up a legal or public defense without outside help.

Of all the girls who send pictures to all their boyfriends in that DA area of concern and the one girl that get pick out just happen to have no support system of any kind?

This is the worst kind of legal child abuse in my opinion and from the comments here the majority of the posters in this thread agree.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You are apparently not bright enough to distinguish the difference between disagreeing with the law and interpreting it. If you had half a brain in your head; you couldn't possibly make such an idiotic argument about outdated laws either. Ohio law, 2907.323 is neither old nor outdated. From memory; it has undergone the scrutiny of the United States Supreme Court quite recently, been enhanced in 2002 by Ohio's version of Megan's Law, and then specifically altered the disposition of 14, 15 and 16, 17 year old offenders in 2006 with Ohio's version of the Adam Walsh Act. Comparing it to an outdated law is an exercise in idiocy.

Your belief that the proper application of this law constitutes child abuse is also idiotic, and it matters not at all how many other ignorant fools on this or any website agree with you. The Law was written quite clearly, adjusted quite recently, and has been reviewed by Ohio's appellate process all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States and found to be fit and proper. I, like them, couldn't care less if some ignorant moron on the internet disagrees.

Your fallacious ad populum argument carries no more weight than your appeal to emotion. Clearly, you are as inept at critical thinking as you are at interpreting the simple English written in 2907.323, and the plethora of supporting material I've provided. I can only conclude you either choose not to read it; or are just too damn dumb to understand it. Either way, it is becoming clear that addressing the idiotic submissions you're posting is a waste of my time, because you simply ignore the facts and think up ever more fantastic nonsense in feeble attempts to prove your gut instinct should trump the laws of the land. They shouldn't, and they don't.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

I think he's just trying to reduce the number of discussions about kiddie-porn and young girl's pooter-pies Bill.

There's nothing wrong with that. The less said the better surely.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Well my friend we turn to insults do we!

In any case, there is no question in my mind that the Ohio lawmakers did not intend to place children in harm way of legal charges for the crime of taking pictures of their own bodies and sharing it with boyfriends or girlfriends.

What is even worst is that this poor child is a ward of the state and as such, the state is supposed to had acted in a parent role to this child!

I tell you what when the state of Ohio legal system begin to drag middle class and the above children off to face such charges and the lawmakers do not meet in emergency session to change the law, then I will grant you some credit to your stupid position that the law was intended by the lawmakers to be enforce in such a manner.

And no matter how you look at it this is legal child abuse.

1 Reply

Quote:

Should this 15-year-old girl, who distributed nude photos of herself to other teens via a cell phone, be criminally punished for a sex offense and be required to register as a sex offender?

And let's not forget the other charge, being in possession of criminal tools, a cell phone no less.

This was the original question 11 pages ago ......

I VOTE NO ....

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Well my friend we turn to insults do we!

I'm left with no choice when you repeat nonsense that's already been demonstrated nonsense.

BillRM wrote:

In any case, there is no question in my mind that the Ohio lawmakers did not intend to place children in harm way of legal charges for the crime of taking pictures of their own bodies and sharing it with boyfriends or girlfriends.

Proving you're too lazy or stupid to learn the pictures weren't just sent to a boyfriend or girlfriend. WTF would it take to get you to read the thread before repeatedly opining from such total ignorance?

BillRM wrote:

What is even worst is that this poor child is a ward of the state and as such, the state is supposed to had acted in a parent role to this child!

That is completely irrelevant in the eyes of the law as far as determining charges. What kind of a moron would want a law that exempted certain people accused of child-sex related crimes from prosecution based on the accused perp's family life? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? Any and all extenuating circumstances and considerations can be examined at plea bargaining, trial, and sentencing stages; but only a complete idiot would want exemptions written into the statutes.

BillRM wrote:

I tell you what when the state of Ohio legal system begin to drag middle class and the above children off to face such charges and the lawmakers do not meet in emergency session to change the law, then I will grant you some credit to your stupid position that the law was intended by the lawmakers to be enforce in such a manner.

Perhaps, when and if a child from a middleclass background or above, who has already been warned first by this very Prosecutor, then again in a personal face to face meeting, chooses to ignore both warnings, both regarding this specific crime, and goes ahead and does it anyway, you'll get your wish. In the mean time; there has only been one such perpetrator that we’re aware of.

BillRM wrote:

And no matter how you look at it this is legal child abuse.

Only in the eyes of a complete moron. Most people recognize that two warnings not to commit a specific crime or you'll be prosecuted means you shouldn't commit that crime unless you want to be prosecuted. Most people have enough brains to recognize warnings of law enforcement would mean absolutely nothing in the absence of law enforcement. Those who can't understand such simple principles will never be in a position to change the outcome anyway. You are a waste of time.

0 Replies

@Deckland,

Deckland wrote:

Quote:
Should this 15-year-old girl, who distributed nude photos of herself to other teens via a cell phone, be criminally punished for a sex offense and be required to register as a sex offender?

And let's not forget the other charge, being in possession of criminal tools, a cell phone no less.

This was the original question 11 pages ago ......

I VOTE NO ....

She will not be required to register as a sex offender as a condition of her settlement, nor did her being charged ever mandate such a thing. Whoever wrote that it could be a mandatory penalty didn’t know what they were talking about. It was simply an option on the table IF the court decided it was warranted. This specific issue, specifically addressing 14 and 15 year old defendants was addressed in 2006 when Ohio adapted their version of the Adam Walsh Act.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

She's not a sex offender bc she's a minor distributing such photos to other minors. Now if those other minors got pissed over that, then that's a different story. However, in my non-lawyer opinion, she's totally a sick ass bitch and need mental help.

1 Reply

@dirrtydozen22,

I was under the impression this thread was dead.

In any case long long before cell phones cameras the mothers and grandmothers of our current teenagers was using photo booths to give boyfriends pictures of themseleves.

The only thing they have going for them that the current teenage girls does not is that booth generated pictures could not be share with the whole world within a minute or so.

Hardly seem sick just a combination of normal sex drive in our teenagers and lack of judgement/foresight also normally found in teenagers.

0 Replies

Teenage Girl: Sex Offender?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know