on CNN 15 year old girl take nude pics of herself, charge with child porn

[Darus Grey]

To me it would seem that he knows the textual statement of the law but not the purpose of it, so the claim does not seem at all irrational to me. The laws aren't written to be 100% strict and he should know that. If an ambulance has to park at a no parking sign to save someone's life I'm pretty sure he's allowed to do it even if it violates the strict definition of the law.

This may not be a good example because I don't know if there's some specific law that allows ambulances to park wherever they want, but the point is that there are situations where the strict letter of the law is broken for certain reasons, and it's allowable.The law isn't meant to be taken as strictly as possible. It's more of a guideline to handle matters on a case by case basis.

You got that backwards, laws are 100% strict, black & white. Comiting a crime is not the same thing as being convicted of a crime.

That's why we have things called Trials, where a Jury and/or a Judge determine if the party in question *deserves* punishment under the law.

[Melchiah]

You got that backwards, laws are 100% strict, black & white. Comiting a crime is not the same thing as being convicted of a crime.

That's why we have things called Trials, where a Jury and/or a Judge determine if the party in question *deserves* punishment under the law.

You clearly do not understand the American Judicial system. The purpose of a trial is to render a verdict, guilty or not guilty. Punishment is left up to the Judge, with a set of allowable punishments based on the charges.

[Charla]

Quick, someone let the police know about stickam. We can nab half the underage population of suburbia in one shot!

[Darus Grey]

You clearly do not understand the American Judicial system. The purpose of a trial is to render a verdict, guilty or not guilty. Punishment is left up to the Judge, with a set of allowable punishments based on the charges.

hi2u semantics. Same shit, different way of saying it. Nice to know we're on the same page, of course, that doesn't address my original point at all.

[Day]

So whats your point exactly? She broke a law? I think we all understand that, as well as agree it's pretty fucking stupid.

[Darus Grey]

So whats your point exactly? She broke a law? I think we all understand that, as well as agree it's pretty fucking stupid.

We all didn't understand that, which is why I said anything to begin with. But yes, that was my entire point, nothing else to it.

I agree it's unjust and absurd, I just wanted to point out breaking the law and being convicted of breaking the law are two entirely different beasts.

[Woozie]

We all didn't understand that, which is why I said anything to begin with. But yes, that was my entire point, nothing else to it.

I agree it's unjust and absurd, I just wanted to point out breaking the law and being convicted of breaking the law are two entirely different beasts.

Exactly what point are you trying to make? All of us were already aware that distributing pictures of a 15 year old is technically against the law. We're just saying that in this situation the actions being taken are ridiculous.

[Charla]

The LAW is the LAW is the LAW.

That's all well and good, but in practice only a tiny fraction of these types of offenses are prosecuted (just in case you've never heard of stickam), thus putting the real power to decide who "deserves" to be called a criminal up to law enforcement first and prosecutors second. Seen in that light, the word "criminal" loses a good deal of its meaning, while still retaining most of its negative connotation. And that makes it misleading (at best) in many situations.

[Darus Grey]

Exactly what point are you trying to make? All of us were already aware that distributing pictures of a 15 year old is technically against the law. We're just saying that in this situation the actions being taken are ridiculous.

My original comment was to the person who said the DA's knowledge of the law should be reviewed(i.e. they were claiming the DA doesn't know the law, when it's clear they do).

I made my point, I was entirely clear about my point. I have no idea what everyone else is arguing against, since there's no ambiguity about it.

[Suited Aces]

if they try her as a youthful offender it's moot in the end because the record is wiped at 18.

That's a common misconception about our justice system. Records are not automatically wiped when you turn 18.

After you turn 18 you have the option have having your record expunged or sealed, but you would have to hire a lawyer and go to court, and even then it would be up to the judge.

I also doubt that a charge as serious as child porn (as ridiculous as it is) would even be eligible for expungment.

[Elvis]

http://www.tampatantrum.com/whatevah.html
http://www.tampatantrum.com/whatevah.html
http://www.tampatantrum.com/whatevah.html
http://www.tampatantrum.com/whatevah.html
http://www.tampatantrum.com/whatevah.html
http://www.tampatantrum.com/whatevah.html
http://www.tampatantrum.com/whatevah.html

[gandorf]

That's a common misconception about our justice system. Records are not automatically wiped when you turn 18.

After you turn 18 you have the option have having your record expunged or sealed, but you would have to hire a lawyer and go to court, and even then it would be up to the judge.

I also doubt that a charge as serious as child porn (as ridiculous as it is) would even be eligible for expungment.

My brother got in trouble as a kid an when he turned 18 my great grandma payed a lot of money to have his record expunged. Like 2-3yrs ago he found out that it is still on his record and the lawyer is no where to be found.

So anyways when this girl gets older it will cost her some money to get it expunged. Even after 3yrs this shit will still follow her around. I don't know about you but something you do in your youth shouldn't follow you around like a curse.

[TheShadyMan]

What's this?
Enforcing laws with no intention of their original purpose?
In my America?
No way.

[Elvis]

Anyone else notice this part in the USAToday article?

Police seized her computer and found dozens of photographs stored on the hard drive. Authorities did not say how police learned about the girl.

WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN?

[Charla]

Why? according to the LAW, she broke it. If you want to argue from the standpoint of the LAW, she is a criminal who produced and *distributed* child pornography.

The LAW is very clear.

There is no real legal argument here, the entire argument is an issue of compassion and mercy, not the law.

This is what I'm arguing against. Law does not ignore intention. It is not a matter of performing an if statement such as
if (me.prohibited_action)
{
me.criminal++;
}
In this case, if the individual in question never intended the image of her own body to be anything other than an intimate interaction with a significant other, it cannot constitute prohibited material. That question in turn raises the question of whether an individual under 18 years of age can be considered capable of making the distiction as to whether a given transmission is intimate as opposed to pornographic. But in that case, the entire argument could end up in the catch 22 mentioned on page 1, arising from the assertion that a minor is not legally capable of committing a consensual sexual act. However, thate same assertion would also indicate that a minor cannot willfully commit a sexual crime, because sex crimes necessarily involve sex acts.

Now, you can argue the facts if you want (although I don't think this board would have much patience for or interest in such a thing for various reasons), but you can't simply claim that because a given action is illegal, anyone who has ever performed that action is a criminal.

On top of that, I take issue with the use of the word criminal, both on the grounds that, as you stated, a person is innocent until proven guilty by due process in a court of law, and as I stated, that the connotations of guilt that it carries are quite inapplicable considering the tiny percentage of this type of "crime" that are ever prosecuted in the first place.

[Darus Grey]

This is what I'm arguing against. Law does not ignore intention. It is not a matter of performing an if statement such as
if (me.prohibited_action)
{
me.criminal++;
}
In this case, if the individual in question never intended the image of her own body to be anything other than an intimate interaction with a significant other, it cannot constitute prohibited material. That question in turn raises the question of whether an individual under 18 years of age can be considered capable of making the distiction as to whether a given transmission is intimate as opposed to pornographic. But in that case, the entire argument could end up in the catch 22 mentioned on page 1, arising from the assertion that a minor is not legally capable of committing a consensual sexual act. However, thate same assertion would also indicate that a minor cannot willfully commit a sexual crime, because sex crimes necessarily involve sex acts.

Now, you can argue the facts if you want (although I don't think this board would have much patience for or interest in such a thing for various reasons), but you can't simply claim that because a given action is illegal, anyone who has ever performed that action is a criminal.

On top of that, I take issue with the use of the word criminal, both on the grounds that, as you stated, a person is innocent until proven guilty by due process in a court of law, and as I stated, that the connotations of guilt that it carries are quite inapplicable considering the tiny percentage of this type of "crime" that are ever prosecuted in the first place.

You're wrong. By all technical definitions you are a criminal once you perform an illegal act(because you are guilty, you performed the act, as the one who did it you know this, others proving that you're a criminal is again, part of a trial).

Criminal according to society is an entirely different argument, and is the one you are making, I made no such claim and as such, you are opposing something I never said.

I don't even disagree with you, but all you're objecting to is the use of the word "criminal" in proper context because it has other connotations and uses...again, semantics.

[Aerin]

Wait, you were serious? The law is the law is the law and that's the end of it? I just can't see that statement as anything other than a parody of institutional simplemindedness.

Letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law.

Pretty sure it's no big deal that she took the pics, it's that she distributed them to others. Which even if they are all minors. Porn is porn is porn is porn.

[Tyche]

If the DA was/is trying to charge the recipients, then he does need to review his knowledge of the law.

Edit: Unless the recipients said "Hey, send it to me" or any of them redistributed. The story doesn't say that however, so to interpret that would be ignorant.

[Rhinox]

Fuck yeah. lets toss a girls life in the shitter because of a mistake she made when she was 15.

Are these guys serious?

Did traci lords ever recieve any jail time for the shit she pulled? I know she didn't distribute but fuck where does it end.

[Charla]

You're wrong. By all technical definitions you are a criminal once you perform an illegal act(because you are guilty, you performed the act, as the one who did it you know this, others proving that you're a criminal is again, part of a trial).

Criminal according to society is an entirely different argument, and is the one you are making, I made no such claim and as such, you are opposing something I never said.

You appear to be saying that there is some absolute definition of the word criminal, which is somehow detatched from society (and therefore laws, because all laws are created and enforced by society). The law says that one is innocent until proven guilty. Does this only apply to "guilty to society"? In order for there to be guilt without involving society, it would have to be in terms of absolute justice. But absolute justice is moral justice, which is separate from law. Justice, guilt, innocence and criminality are all concepts that only exist because humans decided they do. Therefore, if humans decide that guilt must be proven, guilt does not exist unless proven. One can say retroactively that because one was later proven guilty and convicted, that one had been guilty since the moment that one committed the crime in question. But before guilt has been proven, it does not exist. And because of that, there is no such thing as a "criminal" except according to society.

On top of that, you haven't even attempted to refute my argument that what she did was not in fact illegal (on the grounds that intentionally creating and distributing a pornographic image requires an understanding that the image in question is pornographic, which in turn requires understanding of sexual motives, of which minors are presumed to be incable, which is the entire underpinning of the concept of "child" pornography in the first place). Regardless of the validity of that argument, the mere fact that I can make it means that the question "did she break the law" is not closed to all possible debate, as you have indicated. If I can argue about it, then it is not a foregone conclusion.