Teenage Girl: Sex Offender?

It's an example of Chaos Theory. The Butterfly effect. The lass is the tipping point in a fundamentally unstable system. Her tiny action creates turmoil.

You are all basically wedded to the idea that the system is stable. It comforts your need for certainty.

It was going to happen somewhere. If you're there when it happens have a feeding frenzy with gilded words interlaced. Glistening words might be better.

It's much more interesting looking at the tipping point of the financial crisis. This case is small-town turmoil. It helps you to stop thinking about total turmoil.

Probably another "pooter-pie" if my reading of history is anything to go by.

1 Reply

Young adults, hell, older ones too are now experiencing the backlash of TMI on places like myspace, blogs, etc.

Not so long ago, who would have thought potential employers would be checking out your facebook to see just what type of person they are potentially hiring?

People sometimes do impetuous things....teens even more so.

Before, when I was young and dinosaurs roamed the earth, if you shared a nude photo of yourself with someone, it was just that..."a" nude photo. Not an electronic version that could be copied to entire world.

Wasn't it the same when the camera was first invented and someone got the bright idea to take a nude photo in the first place? I mean, before the camera, people would've had to walk around with nude portraits under their arms if they wanted to show someone what their GF looked like.

Prior to that, some impetuous cave teen had to drag someone into his cave and force them to look at the drawings on his walls.

1 Reply

@spendius,

The system had to be fundamentally unstable for an itsy-bitsy girl to have done an itsy-bitsy thing on an itsy-bitsy mobile phone in an itsy-bitsy place a long way from the Green Zone and caused all this turmoil.

All over a "Pooter-pie". It sort of enhances the importance of Pooter-pies generally it seems to me. Ladies should see her as heroic. If they can get over their envy.

Bernard Shaw famously said that if women are given the vote we will all end up talking about their ovaries.

0 Replies

@chai2,

chai2 wrote:

Before, when I was young and dinosaurs roamed the earth, if you shared a nude photo of yourself with someone, it was just that..."a" nude photo. Not an electronic version that could be copied to entire world.

Polaroid was awesome wasnt it.
OHHHHHH the things I did with mine.
People would call me a sociopath.
Killed bugs ( click. Photo)
dead animal ( click )
Butt cheeks (click)
friends on potty ( click )
Boogers (click)
Friends butts (click)

you name it. I had a blast and i was probably no more then 9 when I got my first polaroid.
Oh jeezee.. I think the police are at my door..

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

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!

I thought he hadn't decided yet, what charges they would be. Am I wrong?

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

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.

Debra Law attacked the legality of the allegation. This is a related, but separate debate from whether or not the Law is just. I demonstrated her obvious error in interpreting the Law as written. As written, if it can be proved that she knowingly sent the photo, she is guilty... and it really is that simple. If you think my interpretation is in error; please feel to demonstrate where. I would welcome the opinion of Tico or Fishin, or JoeFromChicago, on the interpretation... this one is really pretty simple. Any Not Equal

All. Or

And. One need not pass the bar to understand this.

I think the problem here is some people are opining philosophically on what they think the law should be, while Debra and I debated what the law actually is. Again, I welcome anyone to demonstrate where they think I have it wrong, if anyone other than Debra actually thinks I do.

Let's look at the law separate from this girl for a moment: What were it's authors intending? Clearly, the intention is to greatly restrict the creation, possession and distribution of naked kid pics. Most of us think this is a good idea.

What did this girl do? She created and distributed a naked kid pic.

Nowhere in statute 2907.323 does it suggest a person can circumvent the law by taking the picture themselves. How could it? That would be akin to saying kiddie porn is illegal for adults to participate in; but kids can have at it with impunity. Am I the only person here who thinks such a law would be insane? (And that is precisely what Debra Law was trying to twist it into.)

Most of us feel bad when a minor gets up caught doing something stupid that also happens to be illegal... especially if it may effect their adulthood. In this instance; the press is naturally boosting the story with the MAXIMUM potential punishment for the crime, seemingly oblivious to the fact that even seasoned repeat pedophiles seldom get anything close to MAXIMUM sentences. There is VERY little chance this girl will… if indeed she doesn’t plead out which I would fully expect… because she can’t beat the case on legal principles.

The law says don’t traffic in naked kid pics.
This kid trafficked a naked kid pic.
Guilt couldn’t be much more obvious.

Next step is deciding how much to factor in her age, intentions, and a plethora of other factors before deciding what punishment is called for, beneficial, etc. assuming they don’t decide to stay the entire proceeding for a probationary period. This hasn’t happened yet, and assuming the outcome will be either A. She get’s off scott-free or B. She faces the MAXIMUM sentence is just silly.

To the extent that the prosecutor doesn’t want to send the message (to the thousands of kids he’s warned of the dangers and illegality of this activity) that NOTHING will be done if you violate this law; he has little choice but to prosecute.

Since his campaign to reduce this behavior began long before this girl decided to offend; I think it the most logical thing in the world to follow up his warnings with actions that legitimize them. The girl in question heard the warnings, not once but twice, and chose to challenge the State’s authority to enforce the law.

She may or may not deserve pity for making such a boneheaded decision; but I hardly think it appropriate to bastardize this prosecutor for doing his job.

I think Ebrown made a very valid point about substituting boys. Ask yourself if you want 12 to 17 year old boys to have the unassailable right to send pics of their manhood to 12 to 17 year old girls. Keep in mind; under Debra’s bizarre interpretation of 2907.323: these kids would all be immune from prosecution so there would be no legal remedy whatsoever. Even if you do think that’s just dandy; do you think it reasonable that the Ohio legislation chose to defend the majority’s community standards in this case and create a law that outlaws the practice?

If so, criticism in this case should be limited to the publicity, the legislation itself, or the sentence (if and when one is actually handed down). There can be no question a crime was committed… and the severity of the crime has yet to be determined.

It sure sounds to me like the prosecutor is looking to prosecute this type of thing as little as possible, since he first received over 20 complaints, then chose to embark on an educational tour to try and talk some sense into the kids first, and is only just now dealing with an offender that flat out ignored two direct warnings. If the law is to have any credibility at all; I don’t see where he had any choice.

Looking at each case and deciding what's best based on your gut works just fine as long as you get to do the judging. This isn't possible in a country of laws so instead of taking every detail into consideration we:
A. Determine what is illegal.
B. Determine what criterion is necessary to prove a crime has been committed.
C. Charge those whose behavior is believed to meet that criterion.
D. Finally, consider ALL of the data before deciding what to do about it.
They haven't got to D. yet.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

And they won't do "D" Bill if your ALL is as emphatic as I presume you intended it to be.

Didn't America start its destiny with an illegal act or two?

She may be a precocious revolutionary bent on freeing women from the stigma of having "dirty bits".

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

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 .

Hardly a gigantic leap. You quoted my response to Hawkeye and described it as exceedingly ignorant... then threatened to attack me with some "I know you are but what am I?" BS. You've now admitted you don't know what Hawkeye's been arguing, so you couldn't possibly know whether my statement had merit. Frankly, I offered you the opportunity to separate yourself from his depraved point of view, and I'm glad to see that you took it. Whatever I may think of you; I certainly don't hold you or too many other people, in the utter disdain I do the misogynistic A-hole who calls himself Hawkeye.

In case you forgot (or maybe Debra, Roger or Nimh could use a reminder of what provoked my in-kind response to you; they felt was out of line); this is what you wrote:

JTT wrote:

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.

This prosecutor, whether you consider him overzealous in this arrest or not, is clearly in the corner of protecting teenage kids. That is precisely opposite of what Hawkeye has been advocating since he showed up here, so there is nothing irrational (let alone exceedingly ignorant) in my statement… whether you or anyone like my style or not.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

And they won't do "D" Bill if your ALL is as emphatic as I presume you intended it to be.

Didn't America start its destiny with an illegal act or two?

She may be a precocious revolutionary bent on freeing women from the stigma of having "dirty bits".

She may be the second coming, Spendy, but that doesn't mean the law should be subverted to suit her. It wasn't written that way, and it can't be enforced that way. I agree with most here that a slap on the hand is appropriate for this first offense... but that is only possible after she's charged with the crime she clearly did commit.

2 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

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.

This assumes that a finding of guilt will be accompanied by the MAXIMUM sentence, which is just plain silly. She's more likely to be found guilty and be sentenced to therapy as a condition of probation.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Hey Bill, have you ever been naked? Is there anyone here that hasn't been naked? Should that be considered a crime? She's probably been teased horribly since this whole thing came up. That alone should be her punishment.

I think the issue is not "is it a crime". Obviously, it is! I think the issue should be "should it be a crime".

End of dissertation.

1 Reply

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

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.

I'll accept your criticism of my country as your opinion; but how do you propose a law should be crafted to consider the embarrassment that might be visited upon the guilty? She chose to ignore two very clear warnings and you still think her feelings should trump the law she was warned about before deliberately choosing to flaunt it? Huh?

0 Replies

@NickFun,

NickFun wrote:

Hey Bill, have you ever been naked? Is there anyone here that hasn't been naked? Should that be considered a crime? She's probably been teased horribly since this whole thing came up. That alone should be her punishment.

I think the issue is not "is it a crime". Obviously, it is! I think the issue should be "should it be a crime".

End of dissertation.

I've been naked, and photographed too. I'm not a kid, so it's irrelevant.

I credit you for making the distinction between whether it's a crime and whether it should be, but I disagree with you completely. DARE programs work. Drug Education works. Sex Education works. None perfectly, mind you, but they do serve to reduce the incidence of bad, illegal, and dangerous behavior. Many of these kids inadvertently feed the sickoes of the world and this has been determined detrimental by the community. I'd rather my teenagers have more than embarrassment as a deterrent to not feed the degenerate perverts... and also as an incentive to resist the pressure of their peers.
The law has no ability to do so whatsoever without at least an occasional arrest... and who better to serve as example than the person who's already ignored two direct warnings of the consequences? The kid is getting what she asked for, and hopefully she and who knows how many others will learn a lesson from it.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

. I agree with most here that a slap on the hand is appropriate for this first offense... but that is only possible after she's charged with the crime she clearly did commit.

That assertion is based on hearsay. You have assumed that the "Pooter-pie" on the mobile is the Pooter-pie of the lass. You might consider having an identification parade. She may well have copied and pasted from a magazine to set you all up to make fools of yourselves. They like tormenting us you know. And some are good at it. And being the centre of attention as well.

Your basic problem is that you can't imagine anybody thinking up things you haven't thought up.

I didn't say that the law should be subverted. I suggested that if the law hadn't been subverted you would now have Gordon Brown in charge of your destiny as would the citizens of Zimbabwe, Iraq etc.

I agree that's a bit fanciful.

You are a serious conservative aren't you. The law set in stone and all.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Debra Law attacked the legality of the allegation. This is a related, but separate debate from whether or not the Law is just. I demonstrated her obvious error in interpreting the Law as written. As written, if it can be proved that she knowingly sent the photo, she is guilty... and it really is that simple. If you think my interpretation is in error; please feel to demonstrate where. I would welcome the opinion of Tico or Fishin, or JoeFromChicago, on the interpretation... this one is really pretty simple. Any All. Or And. One need not pass the bar to understand this.

Start at the beginning:

“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).

The culpability element is "recklessly" (not "knowingly"). Focus on the conduct element that you singled out: "sent" the photo. You claim, if she sent it, she's guilty. If that's true, then why does the State of Ohio bother to criminalize the conduct of "sending" in more than one statute? Why not have just ONE statute--one size fit all? The answer is because the "sending" statutes have different objects and different policies underlying the provisions of each statute.

Compare two statutes that criminalize "sending" found here:

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

2907.31 Disseminating matter harmful to juveniles.
2907.323 Illegal use of minor in nudity-oriented material or performance.

Under section 2907.31, the legislative object and policy is to protect juveniles (minors) who RECEIVE harmful materials. Thus, the law criminalizes the dissemination (sending) of harmful matter (i.e. pornographic materials) to juveniles.

The prosecutor, according to his press release, charged the accused minor with a violation of section 2907.323. The legislative object and policy is to protect the minors who are exploited by others. OSBORNE v. OHIO, 495 U.S. 103 (1990). The state's purpose is to protect the victims of child pornography. Id. The Supreme Court stated:

"It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State's interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor is compelling. . . . The legislative judgment, as well as the judgment found in relevant literature, is that the use of children as subjects of pornographic materials is harmful to the physiological, emotional, and mental health of the child. " Id. at 109.

Thus, under one statute, the PROTECTED CLASS of persons are juveniles who RECEIVE harmful (pornographic) materials. Under the other statute, the statute under which the accused minor was charged, the PROTECTED CLASS of persons are minors who are the subjects of pornographic materials. In the case we're discussing, the accused minor--who is the subject of the "nudity-oriented" photo--is the person whom the State Legislature seeks to protect.

It is against PUBLIC POLICY 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. See, e.g., THE STATE OF OHIO v. LUCAS, 795 N.E.2d 642 (Ohio 2003). It is contemplated that protected persons will often consent and participate in the forbidden conduct, but their consent or participation is not made a crime. "[W]hen the Legislature has imposed criminal penalties to protect a specific class of individuals, it can hardly have meant that a member of that very class should be punishable either as an aider or abettor or as a co-conspirator." Id. (citation omitted.) Likewise, when the Legislature has imposed criminal penalities to protect minors who are the subject of pornography, it can hardly have meant that a member of that very class should be punishable as a perpetrator of her own exploitation. "We must construe a statute that recognizes that a protected party can participate in the violation of the very statute that affords protection but provides no punishment for the protected party's activity." Id.

In other words, it's NOT a crime under Ohio R.C. Section 2907.323 for a minor to exploit herself.

See also the following commentary:

Quote:

As with statutory rape, child pornography is criminalized because the victims are thought to be incapable of appreciating the harms that flow from sexual conduct and are susceptible to manipulation. This is why minors are considered incapable of giving legal consent to sexual relations. To turn around and prosecute the 15-year-old in question amounts to prosecuting her for an act that the law says she does not have the capacity to comprehend. She's being prosecuted under a legislative scheme designed for her own protection. Consider also the ridiculous consequences of prosecution. If convicted of such an offense, in many states, one would have to register as a sex offender. Imagine that: bearing the onus of sex offender registration for having photgraphed oneself nude. Wow!

Posted by: The Curmudgeonly Clerk at April 8, 2004 12:40 PM

If the prosecutor wanted to criminally penalize the accused minor for SENDING a nude photo of herself to her minor (juvenile) classmates, why didn't he charge her Ohio R.C. Section 2907.31, Disseminating matter harmful to juveniles? After all, the legislative purpose and policy underlying this statute is to protect the RECIPIENTS of the "harmful matter." Perhaps the nude photo wasn't so harmful? After all, depictions of nudity, without more, constitute protected expression. OSBORNE v. OHIO, 495 U.S. 103 (1990).

Again, statutory interpretation requires the following: "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.” If you erroneously insist on focusing on a single word or sentence fragment while ignoring the provisions of the whole law and its object and policy (claiming it's not relevant when it is), we can't go any further in this discussion.

1 Reply

Quote:

Under section 2907.31, the legislative object and policy is to protect juveniles (minors) who RECEIVE harmful materials. Thus, the law criminalizes the dissemination (sending) of harmful matter (i.e. pornographic materials) to juveniles.

Is it now required that skin magazines be kept in gun/skin/porn safes?

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Debra Law attacked the legality of the allegation. This is a related, but separate debate from whether or not the Law is just. I demonstrated her obvious error in interpreting the Law as written. As written, if it can be proved that she knowingly sent the photo, she is guilty... and it really is that simple. If you think my interpretation is in error; please feel to demonstrate where. I would welcome the opinion of Tico or Fishin, or JoeFromChicago, on the interpretation... this one is really pretty simple. Any All. Or And. One need not pass the bar to understand this.

Start at the beginning:

“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).

Debra, for crying out loud. This is ridiculous, it doesn't apply, and it's already been exposed as utter nonsense. Look again:

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

This is clear enough for a child to understand, Debra. Any Not Equal

All. Or

And
The purpose of the statute is abundantly clear and is in no way at cross purpose with this prosecution. Using your absurd definition; Virtually every Statute in every Penal Code would be rendered useless in every case where every option wasn't simultaneously represented. Your argument is completely ridiculous. Any sane judge would bust a gut if you introduced such nonsense.

Trying to super-impose your Statutory Rape decision in here is equally ridiculous. It doesn't apply. In the case of Statutory Rape; the adult is the perpetrator, the child the victim. In this case; the girl is the perpetrator. If this idiotic line of argument were to stand up in court; it would set a precedent that kids could make and distribute as much porn as they so chose with impunity. That is flat out friggin ridiculous. You can't possibly believe that was the intent of legislators. (I hope. Shocked

)

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OB, without a clue as usual. Law is not literal words on a signed document, it is the printed words + Intent of the law as told by those who wrote it and voted for it + Precedence

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

OB, without a clue as usual. Law is not literal words on a signed document, it is the printed words + Intent of the law as told by those who wrote it and voted for it + Precedence

The misogynist has this right, actually (accept the clueless part, of course). The intent is clear enough (stop sickos like you from getting their hands on naked teen pics) and the Precedent Debra's trying to apply doesn't apply. It certainly figures that you’d want to believe it did, however, on account of your own demented depravity.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Occom Bill:

As a matter of general practice, when there are multiple means by which a person may violate a criminal statute, the person is charged in the conjunctive, but the jury is instructed in the disjunctive. (Which is why criminal defense attorneys ask for Bills of Particulars.) But, we're not discussing the issue of charging a person conjunctively or disjunctively. Thus, your focus on the word "or" isn't even relevant to the discussion. (Teenage Girl: Sex Offender?)

The statute penalizes a person (as a sex offender) for taking, sending, and/or possessing a picture (material) that shows a minor in a state of nudity. (As an aside, however, more than mere nudity is required. To survive constitutional scrutiny, the Ohio SC requires the offending nudity to constitute a lewd exhibition or involve a graphic focus on the genitals.) In other words, there are several means by which a person may violate the statute. This is true with many criminal statutes. The law requires that ALL of the provisions in the statutory scheme at issue must be construed as a whole to serve the underlying legislative object and policy to PROTECT the minor who is being depicted in the allegedly offending material.

You cannot, in good faith, avoid basic rules of statutory construction by pointing to the "or" words in your dissection of the statutory provisions. If you made this same spurious argument to the Ohio Supreme Court, the Court would say, so what? We already know (duh) that the statutory scheme provides alternate means by which the statute may be violated. The question, counsel, is how does charging the minor as a felony sex offender for taking, possessing, OR sending a nude picture of herself serve the underlying legislative object and policy to PROTECT the minor who is being depicted in the allegedly offending material? How would you answer that question posed to you by the reviewing court? Because that's where you win or lose your case.

Take a look at Ohio v. Arnold:

Defendant Arnold appealed his conviction for illegal use (possessing or viewing) of a minor in nudity oriented materials in violation of Ohio R.C. Section 2907.323(A)(3). The mother of an underage female contacted the police and reported that Arnold was taking sexually provocative photographs of her daughter and two other young girls. The matter was investigated and Arnold was arrested. The facts at trial disclosed that the three minor girls photographed themselves in the nude and they transferred the nude photos to Arnold in exchange for money and marijuana. Although the girls photographed themselves, temporarily possessed and viewed the photos of themselves, and then transferred the photos to ARNOLD, the girls were NOT charged as sex offenders nor were they charged with aiding and abetting Arnold. They were treated as the victims. The DEFENDANT Arnold was convicted of possessing and viewing the photos--a crime that Arnold could not have committed if the girls had not first taken the sexually explicit photos of themselves and transferred the photos to him.

If these minor girls and/or their mothers were aware that the girls could be charged with a felony sex offense for taking, possessing, and/or transferring nude photos of themselves--and risk being required to register themselves as sex offenders for twenty years--do you think they would have come forward to report Arnold's exploitive conduct to the police? How does making minors (and their parents/guardians) fearful of coming forward to report crimes comport with the underlying legislative purpose to protect minors from being exploited?

Under your argument, however, the underlying object and policy of the statutory scheme isn't relevant. According to you, the girls transferred the nude photos of themselves to Arnold--thus they are guilty. Hopefully, however, our courts are aware that legislators aren't in the business of passing laws that victimize victims under the guise of protecting them. Finally, I've tried to be patient, but if you have no more to offer this discussion except another litany of insults, I'm not inclined to respond in the future.

1 Reply

Teenage Girl: Sex Offender?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know