Pennsylvania Teens face Child Porn Charges -

[Neil]

Again, AFAIK, the prosecutor can always find a reason not to prosecute if he wants to.  He can decide that he is unlikely to get a conviction and decline to prosecute for that reason.

Perhaps, but wouldn't he still have to deal with public outrage?  Parents tend to stupidity and judgemental behavior.

[Admiral Yi]

Perhaps, but wouldn't he still have to deal with public outrage?  Parents tend to stupidity and judgemental behavior.

Who's going to be outraged?  The parents of the 14 year old?  The parents of the boys?

[Neil]

Perhaps, but wouldn't he still have to deal with public outrage?  Parents tend to stupidity and judgemental behavior.

Who's going to be outraged?  The parents of the 14 year old?  The parents of the boys?

Christians.

[Grallon]

...

The laws were never designed for children misusing the freedom of communications that cell phones provide. There need to be some lesser charges placed on the books to deal with this.

I wasn't directly refering to the youths involved - teenagers doing stupid shit is the norm and not the exception - but rather to everybody else that are involved.  From the parents, to the school officials, to the legal authorities; they're all denying their respective responsability by throwing back the onus on each other.  For some it's an opportunity to make a buck, for others it's to protect themselves and avoid lawsuits.  And considering the litigation culture in the US, that is a well founded concern.  In fact this is in the same vein as that other incident reported here about a teacher being beaten by some of his students.  What it really reveals is how anomic our societies have become.

And who's "Dontsaybanana' anyway ?



G.

[Neil]

Read his sig.

[dps]

Again, AFAIK, the prosecutor can always find a reason not to prosecute if he wants to.  He can decide that he is unlikely to get a conviction and decline to prosecute for that reason.

Perhaps, but wouldn't he still have to deal with public outrage?  Parents tend to stupidity and judgemental behavior.

Yeah, that's why earlier I mentioned that there might be a political cost.  Though I really don't know who would be upset if he didn't prosecute in this case.

[Martinus]

Agreed. No need to ruin the kids lives with this on their records. My understanding is that many states have some kind of laws that don't treat a 16 yo having sex with an under16, like a 14/15 yo, same as a much older person with a teen.

Nevertheless, there's degrees and degrees. Kids fight all the time, and in more severe cases they can have assault charges filed and spend a few days doing community service to think about how their actions are affecting others. Likewise, I don't think it would be a good idea to give them a "get out of jail free card" (no pun intended), but with these kinds of major charges, a prosecutor and a judge often have their hands tied; there need to be lesser charges that can be amended and dismissed at the prosecution's or the judge's discretion.

That the judges hands are tied once a case comes before them, I'll grant you, but AFAIK, a prosecutor always has the discretion not to prosecute in any given case.  Of course, there may be a political cost to them for not prosecuting, but that's not the same as having their hands tied.

I think the fact that prosecutors in the US are elected officials makes this part of the problem. If they were parts of the civil service (which means they can't be easily appointed or dismissed by politicians, either), I don't think they would prosecute people who are pretty much innocents just to gain a political capital.

In fact it's a broader thing - the exercise of justice shouldn't be political. I was appalled when I first found out in the US you elect your judges in popular elections.

[Martinus]

On a completely different note (and this perhaps relates more to the prescription drugs thread than here), I think (maybe I am wrong but that's my impression) that a lot of parents these days seem to want this kind of "perfect" child raising experience, where their child "jumps through all the right hoops" and whatnot - so they never get bruised, never do something stupid or silly etc. This places an immense responsibility on children caretakers (like teachers) who have to deal with angry parents because their precious kids did not get perfect marks, or got into a relatively harmless brawl or fell down during a game of tag and scrapped their knee. And the end result is society acting like the children need to be protected against any, however slightest, form of harm they may face - the result being this kind of stifling, sheltered upbringing, which creates unrealistic social situations.

What do you guys think?

[Ed Anger]

On a completely different note (and this perhaps relates more to the prescription drugs thread than here), I think (maybe I am wrong but that's my impression) that a lot of parents these days seem to want this kind of "perfect" child raising experience, where their child "jumps through all the right hoops" and whatnot - so they never get bruised, never do something stupid or silly etc. This places an immense responsibility on children caretakers (like teachers) who have to deal with angry parents because their precious kids did not get perfect marks, or got into a relatively harmless brawl or fell down during a game of tag and scrapped their knee. And the end result is society acting like the children need to be protected against any, however slightest, form of harm they may face - the result being this kind of stifling, sheltered upbringing, which creates unrealistic social situations.

What do you guys think?

The term you are looking for is "helicopter parents".

[Caliga]

prosecutors in the US are elected officials

They are?  I know DA's are, at least in some places, but I think most prosecutors are hired/appointed.

[Neil]

I think the fact that prosecutors in the US are elected officials makes this part of the problem. If they were parts of the civil service (which means they can't be easily appointed or dismissed by politicians, either), I don't think they would prosecute people who are pretty much innocents just to gain a political capital.

In fact it's a broader thing - the exercise of justice shouldn't be political. I was appalled when I first found out in the US you elect your judges in popular elections.

While you are sadly deluded about how civil service prosecutors would stand up for what is right, your second point is acceptable.  As disgusting as you are, and as much as I want to oppose you out of reflex, you're partially right every once in a while.

[Neil]

prosecutors in the US are elected officials

They are?  I know DA's are, at least in some places, but I think most prosecutors are hired/appointed.

He means DAs.  The term doesn't exist in most of the world.

[dps]

Just to clear up any confusion that might result from the recent exchange involving Marty, Neil, and Cal:  in most jurisdictions in the US, the official that heads the local prosecutor's office is called the District Attorney, and is elected, but is backed up by a staff of assistant prosecutors who are not elected.  (Usual caveat about there being 50 different states, so there are a lot of exceptions/variations.)

[saskganesh]

  in western democracies, bureaucrats are routinely appointed by politicians (as well as fired) for political reasons.

[Iormlund]

In Spain only senior bureaucrats are appointed and civil servants cannot be fired. Isn't it similar in the UK as well?