Teenage Girl: Sex Offender?

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.

the recipients of her messages may be also facing prosecution for their passive role(s) in this incident.

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

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.

Police said the girl was charged with possession and dissemination of child pornography.

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.

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.

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? . . . .

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?

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.

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.

There is something major wrong here. What a 15 year old girl does should have no connection to child pornography laws.