Bringing back the witch trials.

[lawtonfogle]

So, we think we as a human race, or at least those of us in first world countries, have matured past the point of witch trials where we dunk a woman, and her drowning in the only way to prove she is innocent, right?

Wrong.

Read the following case, but first, let me point something out. The people in this case are not being charged with a crime, that already happened. They are not being convicted of this crime, that also happened. Instead, the appeals court has upheld the conviction.

Also, a quick question and one I want you to think long and hard about. Should everyone involved in the production of child pornography be punished?




Come on, write your responses first. Answer the poll now, then continue.




Ok, here is the link.

Police blotter: Teens prosecuted for racy photos - CNET News


To answer my own question, no. WHAT!?!?!?!? Well, to put it simply, the child, the victim, should not be charged.

"But Lawtonfogle, of course we wouldn't charge the victim, that is just stupid." Except, in that link, the victim was charged, convicted, and then had the conviction upheld. As one comment puts it, the idea that this is worthy of turning those two teenagers into sex offenders for life is more akin to dunking a woman until she drowns to prove she is not a witch than justice (or they said something like that).

 

[MoonLancer]

lol a sex offender who offends ones self? oh my Gaia what the frack?

 

[Washington]

I go along with Judge Philip Padovano's opinion.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

I'll just say no. Because, I really think it would be stupid to charge the child of anything.

I guess, to be simple, anyone "of age" (not a minor. take from that what you will) would be charged, I think.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives.

Lols? I mean really, there is not intelligent response to the judge not understanding how much damage 'producer of child pornography' does to ones career? Really, do we have idiots that great as judges? That isn't even corrupt or evil, that is just pure plain stupidity.

 

[Steezie]

Honestly its hard to make a sweeping judgement because there are always exceptions. Do you charge someone who held child pornography pictures on his server without knowing what they were? Do you charge a photo clerk who put the film for the pictures in a machine without looking at them?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Honestly its hard to make a sweeping judgement because there are always exceptions. Do you charge someone who held child pornography pictures on his server without knowing what they were? Do you charge a photo clerk who put the film for the pictures in a machine without looking at them?

If in Florida, it seems you do.

 

[[serious]]

TBH, many of these laws were made without adequate consideration of how they would be applied. The fact is, we don't have an objective way to define pornography. Sure, there are clear cut cases on both ends, but how does one deal with grey areas? What about cartoons depicting underage sex? What about photorealistic computer generated images? Going the other way, what about things that address sexuality in minors such as the book Lolita?

We also need to relook at what, exactly, our objectives are and what exactly we are protecting children from. Currently, the dominant societal model seems to be to keep children completely in the dark about sexuality. Of course, this is impossible. It has always been impossible. It is far from unusual for a child to walk in on his or her parents at some point. Considering the size of houses has gotten much larger, it's probably safe to say that this was an even more common place occurrence for much of human history.

Now, when we get into older children, we need to realize we have been artificially extending childhood well into physical adulthood. Guess what? The hormones don't wait for society to decide they are an adult. While it once made sense to peg the age of adulthood around the time of their entry into the workforce, increasing use of higher education makes this impractical. I think we should be focusing on preparing children for adult roles earlier and try to allow for earlier marriage. Currently average age at first marriage has been drifting back with increased schooling. age of first sexual contact has been drifting the other way. It's one thing to say to a 15 year old, "wait 3 years then get married and you can have sex then" It's entirely different to ask them to wait over a decade until they are out of college and in a steady job.

We, as a society, should be preparing our children to take on adult responsibilities within a few years of puberty. It's what used to happen so it isn't that they aren't capable of it, it's that we are failing to prepare them for it.

 

[Verv]

The child should not be charged but I think in the recent case of the girl who was putting up pretty pornographic images of herself on myspace at age fourteen some sort of intervention would be required.

 

[Ryal Kane]

If they're underage, shouldn't they be prosecuted as minors? Otherwise it seems a huge double standard. Child pornography, as aborant as it is, is the new witchhunt, people going totally overboard on restrictions and penalties of innocent actions.

It reminds me of the pedofinder general flash cartoons.

This is only rung on the stupid ladder above charging minors with interfering with a child if they touch.

 

[BobW188]

My problem here is that if Amber lacked the "foresight and maturity" to consider the possible consequences; how can she be found to have the capacity to formulate the intent to violate the statute?
It's true that no insanity defense was raised here; but the appeals court ruling all but says that the defendant lacked the capacity to know whether what she was doing was right or wrong.
That being said, the facts as stated indicate that Amber was a willing participant both in whatever went on and the recording of it. I'm not comfortable with the idea of her as a "victim." Though if "stupid" equals "victim," we could sure put an end to the overcrowding of jails and prisons!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Manufacturer of the camera? Supplier of any props or sets? Owner of the facility where the pornoigraphy was produced?

Rabbit hole, people.

 

[ragarth]

I answered without reading any other posts so that my answer wouldn't be tainted.

I said 'no' because the laws on child porn are excessively broad in certain areas, mothers have been prosecuted for taking pictures of their children. -.-

 

[lawtonfogle]

Who said yes? Please tell me the nature of the question tricked you, and you don't agree with the appeals court (in actuality, just tell me the truth, don't lie ).

The poll is not public so you only have to admit it if you want to.

 

[Jade Margery]

*sigh*

This kind of stuff makes me a sad panda. Megan's law was a good idea--keeping tabs on sex offenders, alerting people to possibly dangerous people in their area... (No, I don't consider it a breach of a known sex offender's rights to tell other people about them, though that is a separate argument.)

But the law has been so badly abused that perfectly innocent people are suffering for it. Take the above case, or one in which a seventeen year old is found guilty of statory rape with a fifteen year old, both willing... or the mother with the bath tub pictures... or the drunk man peeing on a building in the middle of the night... Broadening the definition until it cannot actually identify a real threat has both diluted the usefulness of the law and destroyed the lives of innocent, harmless people.

As for the above case... ugh. Some people are just incredibly stupid, and then other more incredibly stupid people put them in charge of things. What else can be said?

 

[orre]

The stupidity of this bafles me.. When a crime has been cimitted, one part (one or many persons) have become discredited by another part. But in the case of child pornography, (initially) children couldn't raise charges of their abuse. So some third party has to raise the charge (the police), and put the culprit to answer. But in this case, the first two parties in the case are the same entity, which makes the whole procedure pointless! It would be like if I had to pay fines to myself..

I think in australia, you can be convicted for cartoon/anime child porn!
Child pornography laws in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Seriously, what were they thinking? NO-ONE at all is hurt by some drawings on a piece of paper! And the reason that it is illegal is that the person MIGHT have been willing to commit the real crime.. This spells THOUGHT CRIME. Would a cartoon/anime of a murder mean one is willing to commit the act? no! Might be? Well..
The point is, convictions shouldn't be based on hypothetical cases, but solid evidence-backed cases.

I also think that a strange part in the law is that the pictures themselves are illegal. Otherwise in all other cases of crime, the act is illegal, not the evidence of it. This is a law which uses an argument from the free market: if the pictures are illegal, the demand will go down, and the total number of cases of child pornography will go down.. well, I dont know, but is this actually the case? Or will it spawn even more cases of child pornography? I guess its hard to do statistics on this one. Anyone got a good argument against me here? I am curious about the logical reasoning..

Anyhow, I don't have any definite answers, but some things are definately rotten with the legislation in this area..

 

[ReverendDG]

If in Florida, it seems you do.

this is why fark has a "florida" tag, weird stuff happens in florida

 

[taku60]

Depends on what you mean by "child". I think 16 and 17 year olds are no longer children and even arguably 15 year olds, back in the day girls got married at 14. So if you are talking about porn with 8 year old girls yea the are sick ****s but if its a 17 yr old girl they are fully mature sexually and are not physically children anymore. Kids in high school are having sex with each other all the time.

 

[jayem]

This decision was rendered at the Appeals Court level, so I'd think the girl can still appeal it to the Florida Supreme Court. That one dissenting judge found that the majority opinion violated her privacy rights under the state constitution. The final word isn't necessarily in.

But she was sentenced only to probation which is reasonable. She plead no contest. Did the article say if she was sentenced as a juvenile? In most states, aren't the records of juvenile offenders permanently sealed if they complete their sentences? So even if the Fla. Supreme court doesn't hear her case, she may not have a lifelong record.

 

[lawtonfogle]

This decision was rendered at the Appeals Court level, so I'd think the girl can still appeal it to the Florida Supreme Court. That one dissenting judge found that the majority opinion violated her privacy rights under the state constitution. The final word isn't necessarily in.

But she was sentenced only to probation which is reasonable. She plead no contest. Did the article say if she was sentenced as a juvenile? In most states, aren't the records of juvenile offenders permanently sealed if they complete their sentences? So even if the Fla. Supreme court doesn't hear her case, she may not have a lifelong record.

Form what I know of sex offender laws, this is not often the case. Of course, maybe Florida is an exception, but I woudn't bet on it.