@OCCOM BILL,
Occom Bill:
Concerning the case entitled Ohio v. Arnold, you stated that the female minors could have been charged as sex offenders. You said, "The minor girls could have been charged had they been deemed responsible for the crimes committed." With the exception of strict liability offenses, criminal responsibility or liability is measured by a person's culpability. In that regard, the minor girls "recklessly or knowingly" transferred the sexually explicit photos to another.
If the statute is applied to criminally penalize minors who victimize themselves--making them both the perpetrator and the victim of the crime-- then few minors or their parents would ever come forward to report the victimization because doing so incriminates the minors and places them at risk of being convicted of a grave felony offense and branded as sex offenders. Accordingly, if victims are afraid to come forward because they fear the law, then the public policy and purpose of the law is defeated. That is an absurd result.
Here's a juvenile court case that discusses the absurd result concerning the improper application of a statute involving a sex offense:
State of Utah v. Z.C.
http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/ZC071707.pdf
Utah’s child sexual abuse statute provides the following:
(1) As used in this section, “child” means
a person under the age of 14.
(2)
A person commits sexual abuse of a child if, under circumstances not amounting to rape of a child, object rape of a child, sodomy upon a child, or an attempt to commit any of these offenses, the actor touches the anus, buttocks, or genitalia of any child, the breast of a female child, or otherwise takes indecent liberties with a child, or causes a child to take indecent liberties with the actor or another with intent to cause substantial emotional or bodily pain to
any person or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of
any person regardless of the sex of any participant.
A 13 year old girl and a 12 year old boy engaged in sex. The girl became pregnant. Both the boy and the girl were separately charged for sexually abusing each other in violation of sexual abuse statute. The girl challenged the statute as applied to her. She argued that the legislature could not have intended such a result.
The Utah Supreme Court set forth the standard: “When interpreting statutes,
our primary goal is to evince the true intent and purpose of the Legislature.” Under the plain language of the statute, a child is a person and may be adjudicated delinquent for sexually touching another child with the requisite intent. The Court said: "Normally, where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, our analysis ends; our duty is to give effect to that plain meaning. However, '[a]n equally well-settled caveat to the plain meaning rule states that
a court should not follow the literal language of a statute if its plain meaning works an absurd result.'"
The Court found that applying the statute to treat Z.C. as both a victim and a perpetrator of child sex abuse for the same act leads to an absurd result that was not intended by the legislature. "Sexual abuse of a child is one of the most heinous crimes recognized by our penal code. The gravity of this crime is reflected by the fact that it is punished as a second degree felony if committed by an adult. Child sex abuse merits serious penalties because of the extreme psychological harm that the perpetrator causes the victim. Therefore, like all forms of sexual assault, child sex abuse presupposes that a single act of abuse involves a
victim,
whom the statute endeavors to protect, and a
perpetrator,
whom the statute punishes for harming the victim.
"By filing delinquency petitions for child sex abuse against both participants for sexually touching one another, the State treats both children as perpetrators of the same act. In this situation, there is no discernible victim that the law seeks to protect, only culpable participants that the State seeks to punish."
The Court also noted: "The primary fail-safe against the absurd application of criminal law is the wise employment of prosecutorial discretion, a quality that is starkly absent in this case."
* * *
Similarly, the OHIO statute that we've been discussing contemplates a perpetrator and a victim (the minor who is shown in a state of nudity). The State of OHIO has defended its statute all the way to the United States Supreme Court. The State of OHIO is on record declaring that the legislative purpose of the statute is to protect the victims of child pornography. Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 109 (1990). It defies logic, reason, and legislative intent to treat the victimized minor, whom the state seeks to protect, as the perpetrator of her own victimization and charge her with an extremely serious crime with substantial penalties.
Again the UTAH SC noted, "The primary fail-safe against the absurd application of criminal law is the wise employment of prosecutorial discretion, a quality that is starkly absent in this case." The same holds true for the Licking County prosecutor in the OHIO case.
In conclusion, Occom Bill, this discussion forum is called "able2know." You have not demonstrated an ability to mentally, emotionally, or intellectual grasp the elementary concepts under discussion. On the other hand, you have demonstrated superior ability to make boorish statements in more than ample quantity. Congratulations!
I have tried very hard to limit my criticism to your outrageous interpretations and arguments. No easy task when you continue to stand behind such utterly ridiculous positions.