http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/
Quote'Sexting' surprise: Teens face child porn charges
6 Pa. high school students busted after sharing nude photos via cell phones
In an unusual legal case arising from the increasingly popular practice known as "sexting," six Pennsylvania high school students are facing child pornography charges after three teenage girls allegedly took nude or semi-nude photos of themselves and shared them with male classmates via their cell phones.
The female students at Greensburg Salem High School in Greensburg, Pa., all 14- or 15-years-old, face charges of manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography while the boys, who are 16 and 17, face charges of possession, according to WPXI-TV in Pittsburgh, which published the story on its Web site on Tuesday.
Police told the station that the photos were discovered in October, after school officials seized a cell phone from a male student who was using it in violation of school rules and found a nude photo of a classmate on it. Police were called in and their investigation led them to other phones containing more photos, it said.
Police Capt. George Seranko was quoted as saying that the first photograph was "a self portrait taken of a juvenile female taking pictures of her body, nude."
The school district issued a statement Tuesday saying that the investigation turned up "no evidence of inappropriate activity on school grounds ... other than the violation of the electronic devices policy." The statement also said that school officials didn't learn of the charges against the students until Monday.
In the WPXI story, which included contributions from the Associated Press, Saranko indicated that authorities decided to file the child pornography charges to send a strong message to other minors who might consider sending such photos to friends.
"It's very dangerous," he said. "Once it's on a cell phone, that cell phone can be put on the Internet where everyone in the world can get access to that juvenile picture. You don't realize what you are doing until it's already done." (Seranko could not be reached for comment on Thursday, and a woman who answered the phone at the Greensburg Police Department said, "Our department is not doing any more interviews on the case.")
But Patrick Artur, a Philadelphia defense attorney who by his reckoning has handled at least 80 child pornography cases, said the prosecution of minors for photos they took themselves runs counter to the purpose of both state and federal child pornography laws: Preventing the sexual abuse of children by "dirty old men in raincoats."
"It's clearly overkill," he said. "... The letter of the law seems to have been violated, but this is not the type of defendant that the legislature envisioned" in passing the statute.
Artur said that because there is no mandatory minimum sentence under Pennsylvania's child pornography law, unlike the federal statute, the students would not necessarily be incarcerated if they are found guilty. But he noted that convictions would have "serious, serious implications," including forcing them having to register as sexual offenders for at least 10 years.
While Artur said the prosecution of a juvenile for allegedly creating and distributing child porn was new to him, a quick review of federal and state statistics showed there have been a handful of similar cases, and several convictions.
While few minors have found themselves in court for e-mailing or posting sexy photos of themselves, there is little doubt that ubiquitous cell phones and easy access to computers have tempted many to push the erotic envelope.
The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy reported last month that a survey of 1,280 teens and young adults found that 20 percent of the teens said they had sent or posted nude or semi nude photos or videos of themselves. That number was slightly higher for teenage girls — 22 percent — vs. boys — 18 percent.
So if a young female wants to frame a male, all she needs to do is send a picture and call the police...
Quote from: Monoriu on March 30, 2009, 04:19:25 AM
So if a young female wants to frame a male, all she needs to do is send a picture and call the police...
Yeah, but she gets charged, too, for manufacturing and disseminating the image. :P
:lol:
It's hard to imagine any jury voting to convict. I'm not familiar with this town, but it appears to be just outside Pittsburgh. If it was in the middle of the state (which culturally resembles rural Alabama or something) I would actually see a conviction being possible. :bleeding:
I will refrain from the usual rolleyes and America bashing for having stupid laws, because I think this kind of thing is a symptom of a broader problem, which is that of the society seemingly losing its broad array of social pressure methods, and having to resort to means of criminal law enforcement, which imo should be the last resort in social interactions.
Should teenagers be sending each other their nude pictures? Probably not (it depends on the age, though - I'd say above the age of consent of 15 or so they should be free to do so). Should we send them to prison or correction facilities when they do so? Probably not.
This is not, obviously, an attempt from me to praise the "good old times" of social ostracism and whatnot - these methods prove to be abusive and have been rightly phased out of our social interactions (or have been rendered impotent). However, we need to devise some new methods of "soft" social control, as we can't have a normal society in which indiscreet teenagers or people smoking pot are sent to prison.
Thoughts?
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2009, 07:28:50 AM
I will refrain from the usual rolleyes and America bashing for having stupid laws, because I think this kind of thing is a symptom of a broader problem, which is that of the society seemingly losing its broad array of social pressure methods, and having to resort to means of criminal law enforcement, which imo should be the last resort in social interactions.
Should teenagers be sending each other their nude pictures? Probably not (it depends on the age, though - I'd say above the age of consent of 15 or so they should be free to do so). Should we send them to prison or correction facilities when they do so? Probably not.
This is not, obviously, an attempt from me to praise the "good old times" of social ostracism and whatnot - these methods prove to be abusive and have been rightly phased out of our social interactions (or have been rendered impotent). However, we need to devise some new methods of "soft" social control, as we can't have a normal society in which indiscreet teenagers or people smoking pot are sent to prison.
Thoughts?
Well, kiddie porn
should be treated as a criminal offense IMO. It's just that teens sharing naughty pics of themselves with each other isn't something that should be considered kiddie porn.
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2009, 07:28:50 AM
This is not, obviously, an attempt from me to praise the "good old times" of social ostracism and whatnot - these methods prove to be abusive and have been rightly phased out of our social interactions (or have been rendered impotent). However, we need to devise some new methods of "soft" social control, as we can't have a normal society in which indiscreet teenagers or people smoking pot are sent to prison.
Thoughts?
This is part of a more general trend where personal responsability has been emptied of all meaning. It's always someone else's fault, someone else's problem. Couple this with an over- emphasis on individualism and personal freedom and you get all kinds of grotesqueries...
And since humans can't control themselves someone has to do this for them.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on March 30, 2009, 11:37:06 AMThis is part of a more general trend where personal responsability has been emptied of all meaning. It's always someone else's fault, someone else's problem. Couple this with an over- emphasis on individualism and personal freedom and you get all kinds of grotesqueries...
And since humans can't control themselves someone has to do this for them.
G.
I agree with you partially, G., but there's a huge double standard coming to light. First the case in Clifton, then this. These laws are being used to utterly destroy the lives of the very children they were designed to protect, simply to make an example. While I agree that more personal responsibility needs to be taken, these are oranges where apples are adults forcing and/or taking advantage of sexuality in children.
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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 30, 2009, 12:30:10 PM
[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.
There don't need to be any criminal charges for something like this.
Quote from: dps on March 30, 2009, 12:48:29 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 30, 2009, 12:30:10 PM
[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.
There don't need to be any criminal charges for something like this.
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.
Quote from: KRonn on March 30, 2009, 01:01:11 PM
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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 30, 2009, 01:05:35 PM
Quote from: KRonn on March 30, 2009, 01:01:11 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on March 30, 2009, 01:19:18 PMThat 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.
Less legal repercussions against the prosecutor? Certainly. However, the prosecutor has to serve the prosecution. They have discretion to amend charges for plea bargaining, where a more effective prosecution might be served, and they have discretion in traffic court because there's a universally recognized "gray area" in traffic law enforcement. Sex offender prosecutions are successful
because of the hardline stance taken; the only time I've ever heard of plea bargaining in sex offender trials is to take down a ring.
Did we just have a thread about this topic, although not this particular incident? :goodboy:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 30, 2009, 01:58:32 PM
Quote from: dps on March 30, 2009, 01:19:18 PMThat 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.
Less legal repercussions against the prosecutor? Certainly. However, the prosecutor has to serve the prosecution. They have discretion to amend charges for plea bargaining, where a more effective prosecution might be served, and they have discretion in traffic court because there's a universally recognized "gray area" in traffic law enforcement. Sex offender prosecutions are successful because of the hardline stance taken; the only time I've ever heard of plea bargaining in sex offender trials is to take down a ring.
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.
An example, not anything to do with sex crimes: a few years ago we caught one of our cashiers stealing money. Basically, what he was doing was manipulating our layaway system and not recording customers layaway payments so that he could pocket the payments. (We did our layaways directly through our regular checkout lanes.) It took us all of an afternoon to explain to the prosecutor exactly how he was manipulating the system, because you couldn't really see how he was doing it without understanding how our registers and layaway system worked. The prosecutor finally realized how the guy was doing it, and there was no doubt that the cashier was guilty, but he told us that he wouldn't prosecute the case because there was no way that he could explain it to a jury welll enough to get them to understand how the crime was committed. I have little doubt that if the cashier had only been caught after stealing tens of thousands of dollars, the prosecutor may well have decided that it would be worth it to invest the time in the case to explain it in enough detail to try to get the jury to understand, but he would have probably had to plan for at least a week-long trial. But since the cashier had only gotten less than a couple of hundred dollars, he wasn't going to want to spend that much time on the case.
Now in the current case, obviously it's not going to be a problem to explain to a jury what happened, but the point is that the prosecutor can probably find some plausible reason to not pursue the case.
Quote from: dps on March 30, 2009, 03:22:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Neil on March 30, 2009, 03:33:26 PM
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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 30, 2009, 03:35:10 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 30, 2009, 03:33:26 PM
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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 30, 2009, 12:30:10 PM
...
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.
Read his sig.
Quote from: Neil on March 30, 2009, 03:33:26 PM
Quote from: dps on March 30, 2009, 03:22:48 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on March 30, 2009, 01:19:18 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 30, 2009, 01:05:35 PM
Quote from: KRonn on March 30, 2009, 01:01:11 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2009, 05:15:19 AM
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".
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2009, 05:02:41 AM
prosecutors in the US are elected officials
:huh: They are? I know DA's are, at least in some places, but I think most prosecutors are hired/appointed.
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2009, 05:02:41 AM
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.
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2009, 07:29:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2009, 05:02:41 AM
prosecutors in the US are elected officials
:huh: 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.
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.)
:huh: in western democracies, bureaucrats are routinely appointed by politicians (as well as fired) for political reasons.
In Spain only senior bureaucrats are appointed and civil servants cannot be fired. Isn't it similar in the UK as well?
Quote from: Iormlund on March 31, 2009, 06:33:32 PM
In Spain only senior bureaucrats are appointed and civil servants cannot be fired. Isn't it similar in the UK as well?
It's the same in Poland and most of Europe as far as I am aware. Only people like ministers and vice-ministers are politically appointed. The people underneath (secretaries, under-secretaries etc.) are part of the civil service and are not subject to political appointments.
I don't think there are any political appointments of bureaucrats in the UK.
At least, not directly, as a government ages it can use it's powers of patronage to promote the sort of people it favours :huh:
Quote from: saskganesh on March 31, 2009, 05:21:19 PM
:huh: in western democracies, bureaucrats are routinely appointed by politicians (as well as fired) for political reasons.
In most of the Western democracies (including Canada), the number of such political positions is very low. Bureaucrats who displease their political masters are shuffled around or shelved. Bureaucrats may become appointed to special jurisdictions once in a while, and these positions can indeed be terminated, but these are extraordinary events. This difference between the US and the rest of the Western world (including the UK) was well noted by Max Weber in the early 20th c.
Quote from: Caliga on March 30, 2009, 06:56:29 AM
:lol:
It's hard to imagine any jury voting to convict. I'm not familiar with this town, but it appears to be just outside Pittsburgh. If it was in the middle of the state (which culturally resembles rural Alabama or something) I would actually see a conviction being possible. :bleeding:
Nah, I have relatives from Greensburg/Westmoreland County. It's filled with your standard rural western Pennsylvanians. In other words lots of genetically deficient people with mullets, disabled vehicles on blocks in the yard, and random furniture/appliances (like fridges) on the porch. "civilization" doesn't extend very much past the boundaries of Allegheny County (the one Pittsburgh is in).