Legal Question

[TNWPsycho]

This one has been bugging me for a little while and i haven't been able to really get an answer.

Naturally, children 15 years old or so are attracted to peers their age. Well, what would happen if a 15 year old child was caught with child porn on their computer of other 15 year olds?

[HeyHomie]

IANAL

As far as I know, the law is the law, and if the 15-year-old posessed illegal photos of other 15-year-olds, then he's in posession of child pornography.

A situation similar to the one you describe happened here in my hometown of Springfield, IL, a few years ago. A freshman student at the University of Illinois at Springfield was using a campus computer to collect pornographic pictures of young women. Being 18, he was attracted to women around that age. The IT department got wind of the fact that there were pornographic pictures on a campus computer, which were downloaded or saved or whatever, when he was logged onto it. Ergo, he posessed the pictures. I suppose he would have gotten off with some sort of campus disciplinary action were it not for the fact that some of the models in those pictures were a few months shy (in one case, 24 months shy) of their 18th birthdays.

He was charged with posession of child pornography. I don't know the resolution of the case, but I imagine that since it was his first offense and since there weren't any, you know, children involved, he probably plea-bargained to a misdemeanor and got off with a fine.

Now, someone is going to demand a cite, and I'm sorry to report I don't have one. This is all based on recollections from local news reports from about five years ago.

[TNWPsycho]

Thanks for the answer, for informative!

[Thalion]

Unlike "statutory rape" laws that vary depending on the age of both the victim and suspect, child porn is child porn no matter who possesses it.

In some circumstances such a case might not be prosecuted, but I think that would be extremely rare. Child porn is considered far too serious a crime to warrant any type of leniency.

[TNWPsycho]

I don't really understand that. I'm not promoting child porn or anything, but wouldn't rape be considered far more serious than child porn? With rape you are physically hurting the victim.

[HeyHomie]

Originally Posted by TNWPsycho

I don't really understand that. I'm not promoting child porn or anything, but wouldn't rape be considered far more serious than child porn? With rape you are physically hurting the victim.

Some states have what's called "Romeo and Juliet" laws. This protects teenagers from being prosecuted for having sex with each other.

For example, if I, a 35-year-old man, have consensual sex with a 16-year-old girl, then that's considered "Statutory Rape," and I'd be facing a long prison sentence. If a 16-year-old boy has sex with a 16-year-old girl, then he's just doing what teenagers do, so there's no crime. I'm undoubtedly leaving out some legal nuance here, but you get the drift.

Also, I think you may be confusing "Statutory Rape" and "Rape." Statutory Rape is "consensual" sex with someone who is legally too young to give consent. In other words, someone under 18, whereas "Rape" is just that: forced intercourse, regardless of the victim's age.

[TNWPsycho]

Ah yes, my mistake. Sorry about that.

[TNWPsycho]

Ah yes, my mistake. Sorry about that.

[TNWPsycho]

This brings me to another question. Ok, a person 16 and 17 are dating for a long time, having sex on several occasion. Then the 17 year old turns 18 making it illegel for them to have sex with the 16 year old. But they had been dating for a long while. How would this be viewed in the court?

[Bill Door]

I had heard that if two 16 year olds engage in sexual activity, and take photographs and each keep some, they can both be charged with possession and distribution of child pornography.

[RealityChuck]

Originally Posted by TNWPsycho

This brings me to another question. Ok, a person 16 and 17 are dating for a long time, having sex on several occasion. Then the 17 year old turns 18 making it illegel for them to have sex with the 16 year old. But they had been dating for a long while. How would this be viewed in the court?

It's up to the DA. Most likely, they wouldn't bother to prosecute, but it all depends on how strictly they want to interpret the law. A few years 18 or 19, they'll most likely just let it drop, but the bigger the age gap, the more likely it will go to trial.

[brujaja]

I guess I always thought of child pornography as being graphic depictions of a sexual act between a child and an adult -- inherently illegal anyway.

Does "child pornography" include pictures of a child naked, all by themselves? Obviously, the "baby on a bear rug" type pictures, no one would try to say were pornographic, but given the controversy over the photos Robert Mapplethorpe took of naked children a number of years ago....does anyone know where exactly is the line drawn?

[TNWPsycho]

I'm curious on that too, because i have read that "Children can be depicted nude as long as it is for the purpose of art" I think that's one of those things that we could ask 20 different people where to draw the line and we would get 20 different answers.

[flight]

Originally Posted by brujaja

I guess I always thought of child pornography as being graphic depictions of a sexual act between a child and an adult -- inherently illegal anyway.

Does "child pornography" include pictures of a child naked, all by themselves? Obviously, the "baby on a bear rug" type pictures, no one would try to say were pornographic, but given the controversy over the photos Robert Mapplethorpe took of naked children a number of years ago....does anyone know where exactly is the line drawn?

Child pornography can include a child by themself. From what I have read, the determination between kiddie porn and pictures of your kids taking a bath is the intent to show them in a sexual nature. This can be subtle and there is controversy over what does and doesn't cross the line.

Oh, and as to the 18 year old having sex with the 17 year old, some statutory rape laws require that there be an adult having sex with minor and that they be some certain number of years different in age. Depends upon the jurisdiction.

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by brujaja

Does "child pornography" include pictures of a child naked, all by themselves? Obviously, the "baby on a bear rug" type pictures, no one would try to say were pornographic, but given the controversy over the photos Robert Mapplethorpe took of naked children a number of years ago....does anyone know where exactly is the line drawn?

Yes and no. While I have no cite handy (and I'm NOT going to google "child pornography trials" to find one), I have read cases where people were at the very least investigated and their children at least temporarily placed in protective custody for naked pictures of the "bearkskin rug" or "bathtub" type.

And there is no well articulated "line". Thanks to "I know it when I see it" attitudes from judges and "reasonable person" language in laws, overzealous photo shop employees are often required by their stores to report ANY child or infant nudity in their customer's pictures. While one would hope that the local law enforcement had good judgement about such things, one would unfortunately occasionally be disappointed.

While I'm not a child pornographer, I'm sure thankful for digital cameras. I shudder to think that my cute little baby girl's bare butt in my photo album could get her taken away.

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by Bill Door

I had heard that if two 16 year olds engage in sexual activity, and take photographs and each keep some, they can both be charged with possession and distribution of child pornography.

So I'm technically guilty of producing child pornography since I took nude photos (including an erection shot) of myself when I was only 16?

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by alphaboi867

So I'm technically guilty of producing child pornography since I took nude photos (including an erection shot) of myself when I was only 16?

Yep.

[TNWPsycho]

Originally Posted by alphaboi867

So I'm technically guilty of producing child pornography since I took nude photos (including an erection shot) of myself when I was only 16?

Haha, oh man, better be careful before 'the man' finds those.

I think taking babies away from their parents just because their parents took a shot of them naked in the tub is a bit ridiculous.

[Bill Door]

Originally Posted by TNWPsycho

Haha, oh man, better be careful before 'the man' finds those.

I think taking babies away from their parents just because their parents took a shot of them naked in the tub is a bit ridiculous.

When my son was a teen he worked at an amusement park. He told me that when cameras were found it was pretty common for someone to take the camera into the locker room to take some incriminating photos before turning it in to the lost and found. You have to wonder what people thought when the got their film developed.

He may have exaggerated the frequency though, he always figured it was a pretty poor story that could only be told the way it actually happened.

[groman]

Originally Posted by TNWPsycho

This brings me to another question. Ok, a person 16 and 17 are dating for a long time, having sex on several occasion. Then the 17 year old turns 18 making it illegel for them to have sex with the 16 year old. But they had been dating for a long while. How would this be viewed in the court?

In some jurisdictions it is illegal for underage people to have sex with each other. For example (and correct me if I'm wrong) in the entire state of California. Legally they are 'raping' each other, and if the age difference is more than 3 years it would be a felony for the older one and he/she could be tried as an adult. Theoretically.

[MizGrand]

Great. So now, you're saying, that in addition to my being a slut in highschool I was also a felonious slut?

In the day, I was well on my way to full-blown alcoholism and was typically the passed-out girl at the party. I was drunk at school on numerous occasions. I *was* a slut, all those cheerleaders were right. I slept with their boyfriends and it made me feel good - like I was getting back at the girls who didn't want me on the squad. HAH! It was really good for my self-image too (not!). But I never believed I was doing anything illegal.

Can I now call up some 'repressed' memories of these "dates" and sue the guys? Could I get financial reimbursement for the emotional horror that was the next morning? I slept with many a man over 18 when I was 16. More than a hundred, all told, during my active times. Now, as a result, I have a fucked up view of relations with my husband. It's not fun. Maybe I could get some $$ for the emotional damages to him?

Satire, folks, satire. I take full responsibility for every time I opened my legs. But it does beg the question.

[FormerMarineGuy]

Originally Posted by RSSchen

Great. So now, you're saying, that in addition to my being a slut in highschool I was also a felonious slut?

In the day, I was well on my way to full-blown alcoholism and was typically the passed-out girl at the party. I was drunk at school on numerous occasions. I *was* a slut, all those cheerleaders were right. I slept with their boyfriends and it made me feel good - like I was getting back at the girls who didn't want me on the squad. HAH! It was really good for my self-image too (not!). But I never believed I was doing anything illegal.

Can I now call up some 'repressed' memories of these "dates" and sue the guys? Could I get financial reimbursement for the emotional horror that was the next morning? I slept with many a man over 18 when I was 16. More than a hundred, all told, during my active times. Now, as a result, I have a fucked up view of relations with my husband. It's not fun. Maybe I could get some $$ for the emotional damages to him?

Satire, folks, satire. I take full responsibility for every time I opened my legs. But it does beg the question.

Well, I have a little vacation time coming up, can you pick me up at the airport, in say, four hours?

[Max Torque]

A quick note about statutory rape and the "just turned 18" thing: some states, like Texas, have the statute worded such that there is an affirmative defense to prosecution so long as the actor is not more than 3 years older than the victim, the victim is over 14, and the actor is not a registered sex offender. Oh, and that the actor and victim would not be prohibited from marrying, which is some odd thing from the anti-bigamy statute, not real sure what that's all about.

Anyway, that means that a guy who turns 18 and still has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend still has an affirmative defense to prosecution. Does that mean he won't be prosecuted? No, if the prosecutor is a dick, but at least he has a damn good defense.

[Bill Door]

Originally Posted by RSSchen

Great. So now, you're saying, that in addition to my being a slut in highschool I was also a felonious slut?{snip}

Oh, we used to talk about girls like you in high school. "I sure wish I could date her" we'd say.

[BwanaBob]

This is odd. In NY, the age of consent is 17. So a man could have sex with a 17 year woman, but not be allowed to possess a nude photo of her.....strange.

[groman]

Originally Posted by BwanaBob

This is odd. In NY, the age of consent is 17. So a man could have sex with a 17 year woman, but not be allowed to possess a nude photo of her.....strange.

Most states' age of consent is 16 years old. In some states depending on the age of the partner it is as low as 14 or 15 years old. Still doesn't affect porn laws though.

[Will Repair]

Originally Posted by TNWPsycho

This brings me to another question. Ok, a person 16 and 17 are dating for a long time, having sex on several occasion. Then the 17 year old turns 18 making it illegel for them to have sex with the 16 year old. But they had been dating for a long while. How would this be viewed in the court?

Remember when doing the right thing was marrying the girl you got pregnant?

No more.

[MizGrand]

Originally Posted by Bill Door

Oh, we used to talk about girls like you in high school. "I sure wish I could date her" we'd say.

larf!

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Will Repair

Remember when doing the right thing was marrying the girl you got pregnant?

No more.

So, what was the outcome for these two kids?

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by Jake

So, what was the outcome for these two kids?

The law was changed, giving judges more discretion in such cases. The two remain friends and have joint custody of the child, although she married someone else (an ex-boyfriend, who was in fact the person that introduced the two). link.

[alphaboi867]

Also not all states apply "Romeo & Juliet" laws when the teens in question are of the same sex.

[Rysto]

I am absolutely certain that here in Canada, minors over the age of consent(14?) can possess pornographic images of themselves, or of themselves with others. They cannot distribute it, though. Recently there was a case where a teenager had naked pictures of his girlfriend, and gave them to all his friends after they broke up. I'm not sure if the case has gone to court yet, but he was definitely charged with distributing child porn.

This came out in R. v. Sharpe. Wikipedia says that so long as the sex act depicted is legal and the recording is for private use only, then it is legal.

[iamamoocher]

I remember reading about a case similar to the Wisconsin case that Will Repair posted a link to.

I think it was in Washington state or Oregon.

An 18 year old (and I think he had just turned 18) got his 15 year old girlfriend pregnant and married her with her parents' consent. As I understand it, this was a legal marriage. The local DA found out about it and charged him with statutory rape of his own wife.

He had to go to jail and must register as a sex offender.

I'm not sure where I intially heard this, but it came up in a discusion about prosecutors applying their personal moral standards on the community they serve.

I think if the girl's parents consented to a marriage, the DA has no business prosecuting this.

This happened a few years ago and maybe another poster is more familiar with the story.

[alphaboi867]

Was he prosecuted for having sex with his wife (ie after they were married)? Do statutory rape laws even apply to married couples?

[WhyNot]

I'm remembering I think the same case, iamamoocher, but the detail I remember is that they moved to a new state after getting married, one in which the age of consent was higher - so the woman he legally married was now underage and he was charged with (statutory) raping his wife. Or was that a different case?

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by WhyNot

I'm remembering I think the same case, iamamoocher, but the detail I remember is that they moved to a new state after getting married, one in which the age of consent was higher - so the woman he legally married was now underage and he was charged with (statutory) raping his wife. Or was that a different case?

It's different if they moved to another state. States don't have to recognize eachothers marriages if they're against public policy.

[iamamoocher]

I'm fuzzy on the details.

I thought it was the same state and the same jurisdiction of the DA.

But I may be wrong.

alphaboi867--as I remember it, he got her pregnant first and then married her. Which is what her parents wanted (the marriage) and gave consent to.

IIRC, this is what all involved (the 2 families) wanted.

Her parents thought the guy was great. Full-time job, comittment, and all.

The DA was supposedly right of Ashcroft--our Federal guy who spent $1,000's to hide the bare-breasted statue of Lady Justice behind curtains during press conferences at the same time we're fighting a war that should liberate women from wearing burkas.

I'm a Republican, but something like that makes me shake my head in disbelief.

And alphaboi867: that's just crazy that your legal wife in one state is your statutory rape victim in another.

What do you think?

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by iamamoocher

...And alphaboi867: that's just crazy that your legal wife in one state is your statutory rape victim in another.

What do you think?

It's crazy, but that's how our legal system works. I can get married in Mass, but in (nearly) every other state me and my husband would be complete strangers as far as the law's concerned.

[iamamoocher]

But is that a "gay" marriage issue or not? I don't know what your sex is.

And that maybe should be another thread.

I think being convicted as a "rapist' for sex with your wife is beyond the Pale.

[alphaboi867]

The point is if their marriage wasn't recognized by the state they moved to then she wasn't his "legal wife" and he was having sex with minor.

[groman]

Originally Posted by alphaboi867

The point is if their marriage wasn't recognized by the state they moved to then she wasn't his "legal wife" and he was having sex with minor.

Yeah but cases like this is when garbage laws like age of consent should be re-evaluated and thrown out. Sending somebody to jail for having consensual sex with his wife, "legal wife" or not is about as retarded as charging a 15 year old with 'sexual abuse of children' for distributing nude photos of HERSELF. Sure, you can theoretically charge her with distributing child pornography, but for the love of all that is sane how can you charge somebody for abusing themselves?

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by iamamoocher

I think being convicted as a "rapist' for sex with your wife is beyond the Pale.

Now hang on a second. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater and regress to the last century. Of course you can be convicted of raping your wife - if you have forced sex with your wife, you've raped her. I don't care what your wedding vows say, rape is rape, and just because she promised to have sex with you sometimes doesn't mean she is obligated to spread her legs whenever you want. No means no, even from your wife.

Given that little slippery slope, I do see why statutory rape laws extend to "protect" women who married their "statutory rapists." If a true pedophile found some country to marry him to a 7 year old, should we not prosecute him for having sex with her in our country? By our standards in all 50 states, she is not able to consent to sex or marriage, even with the consent of her parents. Does she not deserve equal protection under the law?

Now, I'm all for radically changing or repealing age of consent laws, but until that happens, I do think that every person should be "protected" by them. The first change I would like to see happen would be that people within a few years of each other not be prosecuted, especially when married and breeding. But the law needs to be changed, not selectively enforced.

[iamamoocher]

WhyNot--I agree.

I should have worded that more clearly.

The couple was less than 3 years apart in age and having consensual sex.

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by iamamoocher

WhyNot--I agree.

I should have worded that more clearly.

The couple was less than 3 years apart in age and having consensual sex.

I thought you did, but I didn't want to leave it lie and have people throw it back atcha later: "What the hell does iamamoocher know? He thinks it's OK to rape your wife! (link) " Just thought we should get it all nice and tidy.