Teenage Girl: Sex Offender?

@roger,

roger wrote:

Very true, Debra.

Amen.

0 Replies

@nimh,

Sounds like a child protection (in this case by no means least from herself, because of her age) and mental health issue to me.

It's inappropriate behaviour for a number of reasons, but it sounds as thought the legal response is ill thought out to say the least, at least as I understand it.

0 Replies

I saw half of a programme about Roman Polanski recently. He was accused of having sex with a minor and it came about during a photo session some company had contracted him for. The company chose the girl.

The programme said that the prosecuting counsel in the case was chosen because he was the only member of the DA's staff who hadn't had sex with a minor.

And the judge was on a giant ego trip. The counsel from both sides were interviewed (Oh-how we age) and none of them trusted the judge. They seemed to think that he would throw Roman to the lions if that would get his mug in the papers and on telly.

And here's me reading a biog of Sarah Bernhardt after finishing Frank Harris's amazing book on Shakespeare. Sheesh!!!

I wonder if the school this young lady attends is promoting Darwin's evolution theory. That would be a turn up for the book eh? What??

The science of vicarious, profitable prurience. It's a bit twee limiting your scientific range to gravity and fossils and government grants. It's a good job the future motor mchanics on the back row in biology lessons flipping elastic bands at the girl's necks don't do that. We could become extinct.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

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/

As I suspected; you can't provide a link to anyone using your legal theory, likely because it isn't sound. Btw, "nonsense" is a description of your legal argument... not your person. You need not be insulted.

Debra Law wrote:

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?

Your interpretation continues to substitute the word AND for the word OR which is absurd. As written, only one of those conditions need to be met... and just pretending otherwise doesn't change this simple fact.

The act of "sending" the picture is a separate act from "possessing" it or "taking" it. The use of the word OR means any of that criteria, not ALL of it. Each time that picture is sent, under the Ohio Law that YOU quoted; it is sufficient to meet the requirements of that Law as a stand alone issue.

Ohio legislators wrote:

(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

Maybe this will help you get your head around the truth of the matter: Even if you could apply your irrelevant statutory rape theory, and thereby prevent the prosecutor from using either possession or taking it against her; it still wouldn't make any difference because his burden of proof is "ANY", NOT "ALL"... "OR", NOT "AND".

Debra Law wrote:

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.

You are purposely distorting what the legislators clearly wrote, based on what? Your interpretation of what was said in a press conference? The allegation is that she violated 2907.323. Should this case go to trial; meeting the criteria defined in this statute would be the prosecutor's burden. That means the way it's written (Any, Or... NOT All, AND).

Debra Law wrote:

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.

This is so much self serving nonsense. The legislators in Ohio offered absolutely nothing to lead you to such an absurd conclusion.
Watch:
15 year old girl sends nude pictures of herself. This violates statute: 2907.323
25 year old woman sends nude pictures of herself, which were taken when she was 15. This violates statute: 2907.323
60 year old man sends nude pictures of a 15 year old girl. This violates statute: 2907.323

In none of these examples is it necessary to demonstrate that the sender had any role in taking the pictures to prove a violation of 2907.323. Nor does it make any difference who the pictured minor is.

In each of the examples above, the prosecutor would have the burden of satisfying the requirements laid out in 2907.323... which clearly states ANY of the actions listed are sufficient to do so.

If, the Law was written the way you'd like to interpret it; a 10 year old could take nudes of herself, and send them to as many people as she'd like, year after year, forever with impunity.

Your assumption that the law was written solely as a protection against the girl being exploited is a farce. The community (Ohio) decided there was a public interest in not distributing nudie pics of minors. Were this girl to die tomorrow, under your interpretation, there would be no reason to protect her further and it would then be considered perfectly legal for anyone to send naked pictures of her. This is straight nonsense. The law is quite clear, even if you are unable or unwilling to understand it as written.

People can disagree whether 15 is too old to not be able to give informed consent and have a right to exploit her naked self, but I suspect few here would actually argue that. People can disagree whether 15 is too young to be held responsible for breaking various laws. Neither of these disagreements change what is clearly stated in statute 2907.323.

I for one don't want my teenage daughter's male peers to be able to send her woody pics with impunity... and this behavior would be legally excluded from prosecution for every kid of every age if Debra's interpretation of the law was correct. Thankfully, it is far from it.

This girl was warned against this behavior by the very prosecutor in question.
She was then specifically warned by the school board individually.
She then decided to knowingly break the law anyway.
This prosecutor's job is to protect everyone's children, and that IMO is what he’s doing.

It would be fool-hearty to set a precedent that kids can ignore the law with impunity and send nudies around as they please, just to protect this one girl from her own, well understood to be illegal, actions. I fully expect she'll plea down to a misdemeanor and receive counseling, but regardless, there is a far greater precedent at stake. This isn’t taking place in a vacuum.

0 Replies

Considering all the legal aspects of this can be very interesting.

However, I consider shewolf's predictions of this girls future to be much more so.

It's all academic from where we sit, for her, it can prevent her from getting her first choice of a job, where she can live, etc.

I remember being 15. I remember some girls being very mature and responsible, others were in the "girls just wanna have fun" mode.

Amongst the fun girls, some where mature, some not. Some knew where to draw the line, some didn't.

Other girls still had the mindset of a much younger person, like 10 year old.

I can see this 15 year old being in any of the above groups. I can't jump to the automatic conclusion that she's disturbed and needs counseling and all that. I'll bet each of us do things, that makes someone looking at us from the outside think we are in dire need of professional help. Mostly, we don't.

Could be she was doing most if not all teens do at one time or another....not thinking.

I don't think she should be charged with a felony, something that will follow her around for the rest of her life.

I do believe her story should be used as an object lesson in high schools.

I did a lot of things when I was young...I just never got caught.

However, there were some things I never did, some because someone before me did and got caught, and were made an example.

That made it REAL.

Maybe the girl's disturbed and needs help.
Maybe she's a slut and knew exactly what she was doing.
Maybe she has the maturity level of a 10 year old and just thought it'd be fun.
Maybe she was dared.
Maybe she just wasn't thinking.

All of the above are not mutually exclsive.

Fortunately, none of us die of embarrassment, although we may want to at the time.

People grow up, move, move on. In a few months few people will remember she's the girl who took pictures of her pooter pie with her cell.

In a few years, she'll be somewhere where no one ever heard of the incident.

2 Replies

@chai2,

chai2 wrote:

In a few years, she'll be somewhere where no one ever heard of the incident.

Not if she's judged to be guilty of being a sex offender in an adult court. Christ, you'd think this were murder or armed robbery.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

As if anyone other than you and a perhaps a handful of idiots take you seriously.

I note that I'm replying to your response, Bill.

Quote:

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.

I don't know what Hawkeye's been arguing so I'd say that that you've made a gigantic leap in logic to assume that I agree with any or all of his positions . I do know that you're not a judge and jury, at least not the sober one sensible people believe we need in these postions.

Perhaps I should have chosen a different posting, one wherein you called him, what was it, 'rape boy' or something similar. Perhaps I overstated my case somewhat; it wasn't 'exceedingly' ignorant, just ignorant.

Remember, free speech entails hearing ideas that you may not like. There is a difference between noxious ideas and turning those ideas into action.

Quote:

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 ... 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.

You've unnecessarily conflated two very distinct issues. I was referring to strictly to how this CHILD was being handled by the legal system. It's absolutely absurd that children are getting caught up in the adult processes relating to child porn.

Here's where you've made your error. The "sick bastards" can be/will be and should be handled by laws separate from those that deal with young people. Why bundle this young lady in with the "sick bastards"?

You've raised the issue again so let me reiterate. This has nothing to do with
with YOU. What was said, and I've read these things more than once, was unwarranted.

1 Reply

@chai2,

I think, boys show (or showed?) the very same attitude.

It least what I remember personally (but I got caught - by teachers - the one or other time) and what I've learnt working with this age group.

[On the other hand I think just naming the place Licking Valley should get somebody arrested.]

0 Replies

@roger,

Right, that's why I'm of the opinion she shouldn't be charged with a felony.

I don't have a problem with her and her actions being held up as an example (we all have our purpose in life, and maybe this is hers), but I think an example to other kids that would make them think "Oh ****, that was stupid" and make them think twice when they're fixin' to do something equally dumb.

But not to be held up as an example in the legal system, hanging her out to dry to prove some legal point and get some lawyer a better office.

0 Replies

Personally, I have no problem with nudity at all. I don't think people should go to jail for it! If she wants to give away nude photos of herself then, by all means, go for it.

1 Reply

I think if half the prosecutors lived like a felon would have to for a year or so, they would not want to hand her this conviction.
It is unfair, unjust and just f-kn WAAAY over the top.

Shes a KID fer crikeys sake. Giving her a felony now removes any chance of her "becoming a productive" member of society.
It removes any ability she has to even go to college , or even some highschools.

I sware lawyers do not think this felony thing through and whom ever made the laws behind it that allow it to be handed so freely didnt either.
It feels to me like they want to give her a felony to " make an example" of her.
WTF. Making an example of her destroys her life. While that "example" only sticks in the kids heads for about a month.... SHE has to live with it.. the children who are the intended recipients of this -example- dont.

1 Reply

@NickFun,

People mature at different ages, though. I would prefer she take time to develope some judgement. Still, there is nothing about this particular issue that says "sex offender".

0 Replies

@shewolfnm,

psssst....shewolf

check you cell phone, I just sent you a picture.

0 Replies

I have some nude pictures of my ex-wife.

2 Replies

@NickFun,

Who doesn't?

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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?

Well Bill, I did read what the Man had to say and I think his reaction was "knee-jerk". 20 years on sex register ? .. Come on, we need a little reality here. "Possession of Criminal Tools for using the phone to commit a felony" ..Another over kill. No where did the Man say she had done this before, just that she did it after the warnings given to schools. No where did I say this should not be stopped, but the extreme measures used to do it are not in keeping with the "crime" committed. When this child grows up, she may have a life long record.
We may differ in opinions here, but I respect your view on the matter.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

If they're going to go as far as labeling her a sex offender and declare a cell phone a criminal tool, then they might as well confiscate all cell phones from nearly every human being on the planet. Now, I'm clearly not stating that every single person in the world that owns a cell phone is going to send naked pictures of themselves to other people, but a vast majority of teens these days- and even young adults and adults- have taken to their camera inside their phone to send such pictures. This 15 year old is simply one of the many that's been caught. Prescribed some therapy sessions, let her explain to someone why she would send such pictures. But don't criminalize her for all eternity for a mistake done while she's still a teenager. Teenagers make mistakes, that's how we grow up and become adults.

0 Replies

@NickFun,

I have shared nude photos too.

I dont think ANYONE has not been in a photo.. SEEN a photo of someone else nude, or known someone who has taken nude photos.

Dont tell me no one here has not done the above...
You know me Cool

so there for you now know somone who has done something like that.
So nah nah.

You are now all felons .

0 Replies

Quote:

OB wrote:
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?

Quote:

Debra Law wrote:
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.

Quote:

OB wrote:
This is so much self serving nonsense. The legislators in Ohio offered absolutely nothing to lead you to such an absurd conclusion.
Watch:
15 year old girl sends nude pictures of herself. This violates statute: 2907.323
25 year old woman sends nude pictures of herself, which were taken when she was 15. This violates statute: 2907.323
60 year old man sends nude pictures of a 15 year old girl. This violates statute: 2907.323

You seem hell bent on proving the legislation is dandy in all respects, Bill, though, with no animosity, I don't think you're at all qualified, but there's no need to get into that.

The fact is, this is a 15 year old girl, a minor, a juvenile, an underage female. I note, with appreciation, your desire to see that children are not exploited, but yet, in this case, you seem content to see that lapse so that the integrity of the Ohio legislature is not impugned.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

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.

Great analogy!

1 Reply

Teenage Girl: Sex Offender?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know