In ‘sexting’ case, police want to photograph teen in sexually explicit manner
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
Don't get me wrong, I think it is utterly crazy that ANYONE was charged in this case. It is a victimless crime. But reading between the lines there's a certain puritanical undertone to all of it.
In most other Western countries this would not be illegal in this way. But the US is extremely religious and has quite an unhealthy attitude to teenage sex (which ironically results in one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the Western world also).
I genuinely wonder how the people who preside over cases like this (e.g. cops, prosecutor, even the judge) sleep at night. They're actually doing more harm to everyone (including society) than the supposed "crime."
The rest of your comment still stands, though.
Who reported it is irrelevant, especially since the person reporting was neither of the kids involved. For identical crimes, either both of them should be arrested or neither of them. Anything else is injustice and a failure.
This is fairly common, as I first wrote here, in a different context (http://blog.seliger.com/2013/04/24/you-dont-forget-your-firs...):
> As Judith Levine notes in Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex: “One striking pair of contradictory trends: as we raise the age of consent for sex, we lower the age at which a wrongdoing child may be tried and sentenced as an adult criminal. Both, needless to say, are ‘in the best interests’ of the child and society.” We want teenagers to be adults when they commit crimes and “children” when they have sex, which tells you more about our culture than about teenagers.
> And, as Laurie Schaffner points out in a separate essay collection, “[...] in certain jurisdictions, young people may not purchase alcohol until their twenty-first birthday, or may be vulnerable plaintiffs in a statutory rape case at 17 years of age, yet may be sentenced to death for crimes committed at age 15 [....]”
> Laws, including those embodied in Face Forward, reflect race and gender norms: white girls are the primary target of age-of-consent laws, while African American youth are the target of laws around crime and delinquency. The contradictory trends are readily explained by something rather unpleasant in society.
I'm not sure about that. Possession of child pornography is a serious crime in most Western countries, and the courts don't really care about excuses, explanations, or the fact that the crime is victim-less. Actually, in most countries, even non-child porn that looks like child porn is illegal (drawings, computer-generated images, adult actors that look like children, ...).
I'm sure there's many places in the law where discretion is used by someone in authority to determine guilt or innocence, but it still frightens me when I see it.
There is no way that say in Germany today the police could get away with trying to induce and photograph a teenage boy's erection for a sexting incident. It is such a fundamental violation of human dignity. I cannot even begin to imagine the press coverage and criminal indictments of the people involved.
The girl's mother called the police, and it surfaced that the girl had lied about her age and name to the man, so he was found guilty but his sentence was 45 days probation only (no jail time) and an 120 day restraining order.
A search for similar cases in the U.S. surfaces: 10 years jail time, 38 years of jail time, etc..
"But the US is extremely religious"
I think you mean "the US is extremely prude"
But it's about the kind of religion. Conservative protestantism has always dominated the religious landscape of the US.
But, man, if I lived in that area I would be running for election come the next round, and I'd beat this story into the ground for the entire campaign. Not that I'd want the job. I've run for office, and thankfully lost thus far. But this is one of those times that it's better to have someone who doesn't know what they're doing (and believe me, there are few less qualified for the job of AG of VA than I) than to let these nutcases continue to run the asylum.
In this hypothetical case, were I to lose and the incumbents stayed in, this would be the sign for any VA resident to get the hell out as your neighbors obviously think this is okay.
As an aside, "special <penis matching> software". Man, I've heard of some verticals in my day, but I'm hoping that's an outrageously small market. (Of course, the guy they quoted is just bullshitting.)
There's no other way to put it.
(Besides the sexist application of a misguided law)
"Police also arrested the teen and took him to juvenile jail, where Foster said they took photos of the teen’s genitals against his will."
The want ANOTHER picture.
>> Man, I've heard of some verticals in my day, but I'm hoping that's an outrageously small market.
Well played.
The "root" of all this evil is the fact that politicians have little incentive and much disincentive to run on a platform (or mention an issue) where they would actually even come close to touching a subject like this with a ten foot pool.
I mean if there ever was a third rail it is this entire subject.
"The police are supposed to protect your children from predators. The Attorney General's office is supposed to prosecute those who would do your children harm. But as the events in Manassas City demonstrate, they are wolves in sheep's clothing. mikestew promises to protect your children, not prey on them. Elect mikestew and he'll make sure the people you're supposed to trust aren't taking nekkid pictures of your kids."
Okay, that last sentence might need a little rewording, possibly explaining why I've never been elected to office. But I can't imagine that a decent campaign manager couldn't pull this off in a tasteful manner while still getting the point across.
Note the quote from the Commonwealth Attorney: Prince William County Commonwealth’s Attorney Paul B. Ebert said that police told him “these allegations [by the lawyers] lack credibility.” They're saying that it's not credible that the threat actually occurred, which likely means that even if it did, they realize how stupid it would be to actually follow through with it at this point.
Don't get me wrong, I'm against the idea of them prosecuting the kid for sending dick pictures, but I'd like to see that fail on its own (lack of) merit.
And then of course there was this woman, who had something similar happen.[2] And you know that they are not the only ones - they are just the ones who made a stink about it and got national news coverage.
More generally, prosecutors love leverage, the more the better (which is a big reason why they don't want to legalize pot). They leveraged Aaron Swartz, too.
I trust the Washington Post - and I further trust that if the WaPo made a mistake, the Manassas PD and DA would be making a big stink about it.
Who I don't trust are juries who, like you, still have an irrational belief in the government and the police - that they are infallible, impartial, and concerned only with serving justice and keeping us safe. The truth is that they are vicious, prejudiced bullies who have a tremendous amount of unchecked power and almost no accountability, operating within a complicated system that they have mastered against suspects who are often cowed in to pleading guilty just to avoid inordinate punishment for things they never did. It's a shit show.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/justice/new-mexico-search-laws... [2] http://www.elpasotimes.com/latestnews/ci_26100843/aclu-woman...
If they had verified the claims, why wouldn't they say so? It would certainly make the article more effective. I don't have any particular belief in the government and police, but I do pay close attention to what articles are implying versus what they are claiming, because for an honest news source, it tends to highlight the differences between what they have verified and what they haven't.
Edit: to be completely clear, the article does not say the prosecutor made these threats. The article says that the defense attorney says the prosecutor made these threats.
Newspapers can and do report surprising legal claims that originate with an attorney because such claims are essentially backed by the attorney's professional reputation, and could result in sanctions or even disbarment if they were made without foundation.
Edit to add: Who I don't trust are juries [...]
I'm with you on that. If unjustly accused I would far rather have the decision made by someone trained to weigh evidence and who will have to state the basis of his/her findings of fact for the record, where they can be challenged at appeal if they are not well founded.
Given the evidence of past police misconduct in the narrow area of forced medical procedures as a form of extra-legal coercement, the benefit of the doubt here has to go to the defendant.
While these allegations sound bizarre, the existence of the photo and affidavit's contents are questions of fact, and if they do exist those materials are in the possession of the court. I can't think of a court that would entertain motions concerning documents whose existence the court knew to be a fiction. Even making unfounded claims of this sort in public seems like it could result in sanctions.
It's at least as plausible that the government attorneys and/or the police are being dishonest. Prosecutors have already fouled the case up once resulting is a dismissal (for failure to certify the defendant as a juvenile). Since people on the government side have a great deal to lose if the allegations turn out to be true, they certainly have an interest in denying the allegations.
I don't see a crime here, when both parties are in a relationship and both consent to the transaction.
I dunno. Maybe I'm naive or something.
Even if the two teenagers were sleeping together that wouldn't change most people's perspective of this case, it certainly wouldn't change mine.
EDIT: Not that I think either of them should be charged, just that if one is, they both should be.
Funny how that works.
Don't be silly, it's always the man's fault.
Either way, a crime has not been committed here, imo.
No, your opinion falls under "common sense" and "healthy attitude towards sexuality" – two traits that quite a number of members of our species seem to lack.
I consider myself lucky, because at least she decided to call my parents first, rather than pressing charges right away.
The teen is facing two felony charges, for possession of child pornography and manufacturing child pornography
The only thing he's being charged with is manufacturing and possessing pictures of himself. These laws obviously exist to protect children from predators and in this case, the district attorney is saying that he is both the child and the predator. It's a preposterous (though not unprecedented) use of these laws.
It's quite clear the the mother doesn't approve of this relationship and she is using the law to clamp down on it. There may be something about the relationship that offends some people's sensibilities (ex: interclass or interracial dating) which is providing the DA cover to do this nonsense.
He possesses the photos of his girlfriend, and he manufactured the photos of himself.
You however would be in the minority if you were upset about the atrocious state of sex laws and their enforcement/sentencing (with mandatory sentencing provisions in most cases) so much so that you felt compelled to support the reform of sex laws and registry requirements (a subject that few would touch with a pole of any length). But you wouldn't be alone.
Even Patty Wetterling, board chair of the National Center for Exploited and Missing Children, has stated that "We've cast such a broad net that we're catching a lot of juveniles who did something stupid or different types of offenders who just screwed up.. They are very different from the man who took Jacob" referring to her son who was abducted as a young child.
Speaking of which: My Son, the Sex Offender: One Mother's Mission to Fight the Law (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/my-son-sex-offender-one-...)
A teenage girl sent pictures to her teenage boyfriend. He is now charged with receiving child pornography.
The teenage boy sent a video back to his teenage girlfriend. He is now charged with manufacturing child pornography.
In order to gather evidence, the government is seeking a warrant to take sexual pictures of the person whose own self-produced picture is considered child pornography.
The authorities have stated that they are doing this to warn kids of the dangers of sexting. The dangers are, precisely, that the government is out of their fucking mind and will go to any length to prosecute people over any absurd bullshit it possibly can.
Makes sense.
Happens all the time. For example:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/fbi-busted-child-porn-...
There are exceptions, it remains to be seen if this is one of them.
For fuck's sake.
Actual intercourse between the two would be punishable by at most a $250 fine in Virginia since the boy is a minor and the girl is less than three years younger - if anyone was wondering.
If not, exactly what else is legal if you've got a "search warrant"? Securities Fraud? Drug dealing? Arson? Murder?
This is wrong on so many levels that I'm getting a headache.
However, requesting, issuing, and following this order could quite easily fall under conspiracy to produce child pornography. The prosecutor that made the request, any doctors involved, the judge that signed the order, and the police involved in carrying it out could potentially all be federally indicted and/or sued for this. They are immune from prosecution and lawsuits except in cases of blatantly illegal conduct, where this clearly falls.
Most times an 17-year-old dates somebody a year or two younger and everything is fine: nobody cares what they're doing. Parents like the kid, the kids behave well, and nobody is the wiser.
Every now and then, however, mom and dad hate the bozo that's dating little Chris. So they try to stop it, but that doesn't work. So they drag the cops in and demand that somebody "do something" Over the years, more and more laws have been set up to "do something", usually about child predation, not this scenario.
In most of these cases, the cops try to calm things down by trying to de-escalate. But sometimes this does not work, so the Commonwealth's Attorney throws the book at the older partner.
It gets worse when the older kid is 17 because there's a time element to it. You charge them as a 17-year-old, they've got a chance to have it all expunged when they reach adulthood. You charge them as an 18-year-old, the mess just gets bigger. Meanwhile the parents (and perhaps the community) is out for blood.
I was lucky in that no charges were pressed, but parents can get very angry -- like come over to your house and shoot you angry. The law in this case is probably the lesser of two evils. I imagine the way the cops want it to play out is that the DA charges the adult with 57 felonies, the kid gets a lawyer, they strike a deal and reduce them all to a misdemeanor and probabtion with the condition that the dating pair stay apart. Parents are happy, society is happy.
I'm not saying I agree with any of this. It's completely nuts. And you can always run into a true believer DA who really is on a crusade. Quite frankly this erect penis nonsense sounds like that might be what we have here. And that's a freaking scary situation. But most of the time this is just a case of using a hammer to kill a fly that keeps landing on your knee.
Having said all of that, the law is insane and must be fixed. Just wanted to point out that sometimes these things don't look as completely crazy from the inside as they do from the outside.
Except the kid, who will now have to live with legally sanctioned sexual assault.
Because what is more likely - that the prosecution went batshit insane, or that the journalist is plain lying to us, omitting relevant details in order to spin it into a small scandal? Hint: think of every time a story was reported about something you had first-hand knowledge about.
There's a widely known scandal in my country that is often repeated as an argument for the great injustice of our IRS. The story, as told by national TV and paper, is that a baker was ruthlessly taxed (and subsequently put out of business) for leftover bread that he gave to an orphanage for free instead throwing it away. "Oh, the evil government is punishing good people", cried the nation. It grew into such a big media mess that the IRS decided to publish a detailed report from tax control of this baker. Apparently, apart from giving food to poor, he was also running a tax avoidance scheme on half of his merchandise, stealing tons of money.
So please just keep in mind that spreading blatant lies is the basic principle news publishing nowdays.
Boy am I glad smartphones weren't a thing when I was in high school! I'd be off the wrong end of death row already - along with almost everyone in my graduating class.
If this is "search" is carried out, I would want to see every one of the participating officers and medical personnel go to jail for rape.
Nothing.
This is hardly the first time this happens. There are about half a dozen cases of this kind in mainstream media every year. Plenty more go unreported. Nothing changes, because everyone feels comfortable being outraged talking about it, but they wouldn't touch the problem with a 20 foot pole when it comes to acting about it.