Posted on 01/15/2009 7:10:43 AM PST by Perdogg
Follow the money. Our government (legislators) want more fines for more revenue. They don’t want incarceration. Jail costs money. Legal defense MAKES the legal industry money (and they lobby legislators, who are former lawyers) as well as the court system (state,county) as well as public servants (prosecutor, judge, clerk of courts, cashier...).
It’s a scam. It’s all a scam to sustain the system.
So you are saying that these girls should be prosecuted to keep them from "exploiting and victimizing" themselves?
As I noted in another post, by that logic, every teen-aged boy in America could be prosecuted for child molestation for "molesting" himself.
Teens can be predators and violent thugs too. We try teens as adults all of the time.
For "preying" on themselves and for punching themselves in their own face? We are talking about girls that took photos "of themselves".
Some common sense is in order here.
There are boys who like to rack up notches on their bedpost with different girls. It isn’t always about love.
Yes, that's the way it has been since time immemorial but that is irrelevant to the issue of girls being prosecuted for taking photos "OF THEMSELVES".
If it is against the law for ANY nude photo to be sent across the phone network then, yes, they committed a crime by sending a nude photo over the phone network.
If the "crime" is a crime solely because of the age involved EVEN IF THE ACT IS UPON ONE'S OWN PERSON, then America's teenagers would be guilty of child molestation every time one of them masturbates or when they decide to get naked with each other in the privacy of their own home while the parents are away.
Such conduct by the teen-aged girl next door is an issue for her parents to deal with. It is none of my business and it shouldn't be any of the Government's business either.
By prosecuting these girls, having the case plastered all over the newspapers and the Internet and having these photos viewed by multiple "investigators", it is the Government that is "exploiting and victimizing" these girls.
I never said anything like that. If you saw a previous post I said the parents should take away their phones and computers until they are able to pay for it themselves. I think that would be an eye opener in the mind of a 14 year old.
It is a crime to produce and distribute child pornography. No matter who does it.
In cases like this the DA needs to use common sense, and I believe he is.
But to actually write a statute that de-criminalizes the act if done by minors would open up loopholes for real pornographers to exploit.
The ones who are sending 6 minutes clips of themselves doing that have crossed a line between "self" and producer.
Yes, that's the way it has been since time immemorial
They used to be they would be prosecuted for statutory rape to limit the number of girls they slept with but attitudes like yours did away with such prosecutions.
Perhaps when they appear in court and a panel of 12 strangers plus a judge and their parents view the images, they will realize that they did have a transgression and a lapse in judgement.
There were minors who stripped and engaged in sex on camera for the "Girls Gone Wild" bottomfeeder (who is a free man).
I guess we just have to accept that is the culture today, right? If they want to do it (consent), let them? Who are we to judge.
The ones who are sending 6 minutes clips of themselves doing that have crossed a line between "self" and producer.
Is it a crime for an adult to "produce" such a video for private use?
If not, then you favor prosecuting the minor "producing" such a video, without there being any adult in the loop, because of the fact that she is a minor.
So, it seems that you advocate having the Government prosecute a child in order to protect the child from herself because she is a child.
Sorry, but that logic sure sounds like child abuse to me.
Private use and it would not leave her hands. Again, there are areas in this country where the age of consent is 16 or 17. Would you have no issues with a 33 year old who is having sex with the girl (or boy) of majority also videoing the act for later personal enjoyment (by the adult)?
A very big girl.
Do you really believe that classifying a teenaged girl taking a photo OF HERSELF to send as a private message to another teenaged girlfriend or boyfriend as "child pornography" constitutes "common sense"?
Do you really believe that prosecuting a teenaged girl taking a photo OF HERSELF to send as a private message to another teenaged girlfriend or boyfriend for "child pornography" constitutes "common sense"?
My "common sense" tells me that the overzealous D.A., getting his sick, perverted jollies by "examining the evidence" in the case is, as the adult viewer of the "evidence", the only one engaged in "child pornography" here under the spirit of the law regarding "child pornography".
My "common sense" is that the D.A. should have never even looked at the "evidence", ordered the reporting Police officer to erase it, reported the incident to the parents, and acted as a decent adult instead of a pervert that goes around showing photos of naked teenaged girls to other members of the D.A.'s office.
Would an establishment, catering to adults, be engaged in "child pornography" by advertising:
LOOK AT NAKED TEENAGED GIRLS, LIVE! HOT TUB WITH NAKED TEENAGED GIRLS!!!
"Common sense" would be on the side of, yes, that constitutes "child pornography".
If six teenagers take advantage of the fact that Mr. & Mrs. Smith are away on a trip for the weekend to have a hot tub, skinny-dipping party at 16 year old Jennifer Smith's house, does it constitute "common sense" to charge Jennifer Smith and her five school friends with "child pornography"?
When the six teens are busted (they made a little bit too much noise and the Police came to the enclosed hot tub area to check things out) is it not more "common sense" to have the parent's deal with this than having the Government streeeeeeeetching the definition of "child pornography" to the breaking point.
But to actually write a statute that de-criminalizes the act if done by minors would open up loopholes for real pornographers to exploit.
Who said anything about changing the statute?
What I am advocating is applying common sense to an individual case.
Yes, that's the way it has been since time immemorial
They used to be they would be prosecuted for statutory rape to limit the number of girls they slept with but attitudes like yours did away with such prosecutions.
So, under-aged "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" is the equivalent of intercourse in your mind?
Does that mean that opening your eyes at a modern public beach automatically qualifies you as having sex or, at least, getting to second base?
You are the one who seemed to be questioning the definition of child porn. What I am advocating is applying common sense to an individual case.
So am I. I think the law is fine as it is, but the DA should (and last I heard was) exercising his discretion to not make a criminal case out of this.
There is no overzealous DA, as you imagine.
Oh, yes, "The girls exploited themselves".
So you, the Holier Than Thou Moral Police, are all in favor of prosecuting the girls for "child pornography" so that the "evidence" of the case can be passed around the office by the adult D.A. and all of his adult assistants so that they can get their perverted jollies looking at naked teenaged girls while, at the same time, sanctimoniously claim that they are protecting the same child whose naked photo they are passing around to each other.
Any D.A. with a shred of common sense and common decency would have had the photos destroyed without ever looking at them and had the parents deal with the discipline of their own children.
There most certainly is child abuse in this case and it is being committed by certain adults.
Perhaps when they appear in court and a panel of 12 strangers plus a judge and their parents view the images, they will realize that they did have a transgression and a lapse in judgment.
Thank you for proving my point.
The girls "exploited themselves" so your sanctimonious solution is to parade their naked photos in front of 12 adult strangers.
But, why limit it to 12 members of the jury, the Judge and the entire D.A.'s office. Why not advocate that the naked photos be posted on a web page so that millions of other sanctimonious adults can look at them ...... for their own moral good, of course. Such a web page will REALLY make them "realize that they did have a transgression and a lapse in judgment".
Maybe, to keep the run of the mill perverts out, the web page can be password protected so that only card carrying members of the Holier Than Thou Moral Police are allowed to log on and view their naked bodies and then talk about how shameful those girls were.
Intercourse and oral and anal sex are still sex. Only now we say that not being able to consent still means that you CAN consent.
unfortunately, that is probably been Uncle Sam’s plan all along..
So, under-aged "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" is the equivalent of intercourse in your mind? .... Polybius
Intercourse and oral and anal sex are still sex. Only now we say that not being able to consent still means that you CAN consent. ... weegee
Did I mistakenly log on to a Triple X-Rated chat room by mistake?
I thought we were on Free Republic discussing some teen-aged girls who took naked photos of themselves and were then being prosecuted for "child pornography" by the D.A.
Ya know, discussions about using common sense in prosecutions, overreach of Government power, Nifong-like D.A.'s, etc. The stuff the FR deals with.
Why are you now, out of the clear blue sky, dragging "oral and anal sex" into the discussion?
This thread is getting waaaay too weird.
Time to move on.
We don’t know the content of ‘these’ photos but we do know what sort of photos and videos are quite common among those of college age.
You say that two teens “looking” is all that teens do these days. They are having sex. Be honest. It isn’t just looking. It’s hooking up. Again, not these 5 kids (or however many in this case), but among teens today.
There is a law that establishes the age to consent to sex. Except it doesn’t mean that anymore, because of an attitude like yours “they are just gonna do it anyway”. Being under the age to consent still permits them to consent. To far more than just “show me”.
You deny such activity occurs. You think that the law should distinguish between one class of individual who can trade in this sort of imagery and one sort who cannot. The law does not draw such distinctions. When they are older (and still have the photos/videos in their possession) do they suddenly become “something else”?
What are you talking about? It's just you, man. It's just you.
(sarc/)
You think the people they sent it to should be sent to jail instead?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.