The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share (MPSIMS)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-31-2006, 11:21 PM
astro astro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
16 YO girl changed with child porn for taking naked pics of another 16 YO girl.

Third teenage girl charged in child pornography case

Charge her with being lewd or lascivious behavior or whatever... but child porn?

At some point aren't prosecutors required to use common sense?


Quote:
NORTH SMITHFIELD, R.I. (AP) -- A teenage girl has been charged with conspiracy in a child pornography case involving two other teenagers.

The 16-year-old from Lincoln was arrested and charged with conspiracy. She's accused of taking explicit photos of two friends, 19-year-old Elizabeth Muller of North Smithfield and a 16-year-old girl from Lincoln whose name hasn't been released.

The photos were later posted on their MySpace Web sites. The name of the third girl, who was charged Wednesday, also has not been released. The other two teens were arrested earlier this week and charged with child pornography
Quote:
Two Teens Charged with Child Pornography
A police officer monitoring myspace.com discovered pornographic pictures of Elizabeth Muller,19, and an unidentified 16-year-old girl according to a spokesperson for the attorney general's office. Also the girls are said to be together in the photos.
The 16-year-old has been charged with child pornography and curfew violation and went before a Family Court judge on the 27th of March. Muller has also been charged with child pornography in District Court.
Muller is a student of Lincoln High School in Providence, Rhode Island. There is no word on whether or not they will have to register as sex offenders
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 03-31-2006, 11:27 PM
Diceman Diceman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Unfortunately, it seems like common sense is strictly optional these days.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-31-2006, 11:38 PM
Least Original User Name Ever Least Original User Name Ever is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
I think I agree.
I mean, if the girl were 18, then I could see it.
Blah.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-01-2006, 02:35 AM
Malacandra Malacandra is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
I don't think we should be hasty in our judgements here.

First we should see the evidence and decide whether it is really pornographic. Just to be fair to all concerned...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-01-2006, 03:39 AM
RandMcnally RandMcnally is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malacandra
First we should see the evidence and decide whether it is really pornographic. Just to be fair to all concerned...


Even I don't have the balls to say that.


Kudoos to you good sir!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-01-2006, 03:40 AM
Stark Raven Mad Stark Raven Mad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
God bless America.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-01-2006, 04:45 AM
Omniscient Omniscient is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 16,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malacandra
I don't think we should be hasty in our judgements here.

First we should see the evidence and decide whether it is really pornographic. Just to be fair to all concerned...
I love this place....
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-01-2006, 07:02 AM
DirkGntly DirkGntly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Quote:
A police officer monitoring myspace.com discovered pornographic pictures...
Kinda like shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it?
Oh, and just for argument's sake...sounds to me like a cop with a child/teen porn fetish has it easy...he can't be arrested for it. "Oh, I was just MONITORING that website...you know...going after the perps and all that..."
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-01-2006, 08:21 AM
Monty Monty is online now
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 17,837
If he was monitoring the site, my guess is that it was part of his job. In other words, that he was assigned to do that. Perhaps he doesn't have any fetish at all.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-01-2006, 10:01 AM
mhendo mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro
Third teenage girl charged in child pornography case

Charge her with being lewd or lascivious behavior or whatever... but child porn?

At some point aren't prosecutors required to use common sense?
You know what's really fucked up about this? The age of consent in Rhode Island is sixteen. Also, as far as i can tell, the state (thankfully) has no laws against homosexual sex.

So, it would have been legal for these three girls to indulge in a three-way carpet-munching dildo-fest, but it's illegal for them to take nude pictures of one another.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-01-2006, 10:27 AM
Electronic Chaos Electronic Chaos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo
You know what's really fucked up about this? The age of consent in Rhode Island is sixteen. Also, as far as i can tell, the state (thankfully) has no laws against homosexual sex.

So, it would have been legal for these three girls to indulge in a three-way carpet-munching dildo-fest, but it's illegal for them to take nude pictures of one another.
I'll see you guys in a few weeks. I'm off to Rhode Island!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-01-2006, 12:01 PM
Cervaise Cervaise is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkGntly
I was just MONITORING that website
Interesting. I'm going to be monitoring some websites later tonight.

</new favorite euphemism>
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-01-2006, 12:18 PM
Lissa Lissa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkGntly
Kinda like shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it?
Oh, and just for argument's sake...sounds to me like a cop with a child/teen porn fetish has it easy...he can't be arrested for it. "Oh, I was just MONITORING that website...you know...going after the perps and all that..."

I know investigators and cops who have to do this. (My hubby works in a prison, and they often have to investigate images which are sent in to the inmates.)

All joking aside, these guys are often somewhat traumatized by seeing them. I've seen tears in their eyes when they talk about what they've seen. It takes a very strong person to remain professional in these circumstances.

That said, I think this particular case from the OP is ridiculous.
__________________
Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-01-2006, 12:59 PM
chaoticbear chaoticbear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
[QUOTE=mhendo Also, as far as i can tell, the state (thankfully) has no laws against homosexual sex.
[/QUOTE]

No state does.The anti-sodomy laws were all nullified by Lawrence v. Texas in 2001.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-01-2006, 01:06 PM
scott62 scott62 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Why don't I know any 16 -19 year olds like this?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-01-2006, 01:06 PM
Otto Otto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Madison WI
Posts: 22,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaoticbear
No state does.The anti-sodomy laws were all nullified by Lawrence v. Texas in 2001.
2003.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-01-2006, 01:11 PM
chaoticbear chaoticbear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Gaudere, I'm going to hit you.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-01-2006, 01:16 PM
mhendo mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaoticbear
No state does.The anti-sodomy laws were all nullified by Lawrence v. Texas in 2001.
Right.

What i should have said was that R.I. doesn't have any separate age of consent for homosexual sex.

Actually, i'd be interested in knowing whether Lawrence v. Texas also nullified such age of consent laws. That is, would it be acceptable for a a state to set a different age of consent for gay sex than for stright sex (e.g., 18 for homosexual sex; 16 for heterosexual sex)?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-01-2006, 01:53 PM
Otto Otto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Madison WI
Posts: 22,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo
What i should have said was that R.I. doesn't have any separate age of consent for homosexual sex.

Actually, i'd be interested in knowing whether Lawrence v. Texas also nullified such age of consent laws. That is, would it be acceptable for a a state to set a different age of consent for gay sex than for stright sex (e.g., 18 for homosexual sex; 16 for heterosexual sex)?
Yes it did, and no the state can't. Shortly after SCOTUS ruled in Lawrence, it ruled on Limon v Kansas. Matthew Limon was imprisoned at age 18 for having consensual oral sex with a 14 year old boy. If the 14 year old had been a girl, Limon's maximum sentence could have been 15 months under the state's so-called "Romeo and Juliet" law, which allows for lesser penalties if the offender is close in age to the "victim." Because Limon and the boy were of the same sex, Limon was sentenced to 17 years in prison. SCOTUS sent the case back to the Kansas courts with an instruction to re-rule consistent with the Court's finding in Lawrence. A unanimous Kansas supreme court vacated his conviction and sentence (after he'd spent over 5 years in prison) and struck down the part of the state's R&J law that allowed for unequal treatment of same-sex offenders as unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-01-2006, 02:33 PM
alphaboi867 alphaboi867 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 11,303
What's really absurd about the law is if she had taken pictures of herseld she could still be charged with making child porn and if convicted have to register as a sex offender. If both parties are minors things should be handled differently that an adult and a minor. If they're close in age (not a 16 and a 6 yr old) then they should just get counseling or a fine.
__________________
No Gods, No Masters
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-01-2006, 04:09 PM
Malacandra Malacandra is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandMcnally
Even I don't have the balls to say that.


Kudoos to you good sir!
It is true that I am glandularly sufficient, but I see it like this:

While I am perfectly happy to comply with a law that forbids me to look at pictures of naked 16yos, I wouldn't consider it immoral to do so, in that it would be no crime for me to fuck 'em.

And another angle is that it's not much skeevier for me to be looking at nekkid 16yos than 19yos, not when I'll be turning 46 next month.

What really chaps my butt is I never got to see any, back when I'd've been young enough for it to be all above board.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.