The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-17-2013, 02:51 AM
Hail Ants Hail Ants is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NY USA
Posts: 5,196
Minors charged with making child porn of themselves

Not sure if this belongs here or GD, but I figure I'd try for the legal opinions first. If a 15 year old texts a picture of their junk to someone on their own initiative without any provocation, they can be charged with both making & distributing child pornography. But legally isn't this like if you attempted suicide and failed, after sending you to a psych ward or rehab they charge you with attempted murder and sentence you to prison for 20 years?

I realize that the motivation for this latest 'zero tolerance' fad is mostly media hysteria and 'end justifying the means', but doesn't this violate some basic, fundamental, English common law principle in terms of the victim and perpetrator being one & the same?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 08-17-2013, 03:04 AM
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 24,414
Legal opinions are still opinions, so let's move this to GD.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-17-2013, 04:17 AM
Grumman Grumman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
There are quite a few edge cases around child pornography where the law is stupid. Like how it's perfectly legal to have sex with your seventeen year old girlfriend, but not to see a photo of them naked. In this case, the only crime they may have committed under a sane legal system is an attempt to frame the recipient by planting child pornography in their possession.

Last edited by Grumman; 08-17-2013 at 04:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-17-2013, 08:56 AM
lawbuff lawbuff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hail Ants View Post
Not sure if this belongs here or GD, but I figure I'd try for the legal opinions first. If a 15 year old texts a picture of their junk to someone on their own initiative without any provocation, they can be charged with both making & distributing child pornography.
Depends on the EXACT wording of the statute.

Quote:
But legally isn't this like if you attempted suicide and failed, after sending you to a psych ward or rehab they charge you with attempted murder and sentence you to prison for 20 years?
Murder has NEVER included suicide, it involves the life of ANOTHER.

Last edited by lawbuff; 08-17-2013 at 08:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-17-2013, 12:42 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 55,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawbuff View Post
Murder has NEVER included suicide, it involves the life of ANOTHER.
Generally yes, but never say never.

I checked the New York State Penal Code. Most definitions of homicide say it has to be the death of "another person" but there are two exceptions. One is that there are crimes defined as "causes the death of a police officer or peace officer" and the other is there's a crime of causing the death of a pregnant woman while performing an illegal abortion.

These appear to be unintended loopholes. But technically if a police officer attempted to kill themselves while on duty or a woman attempted to kill herself by giving herself an abortion, they could be charged with attempted homicide under the laws as written.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-17-2013, 12:58 PM
lawbuff lawbuff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Generally yes, but never say never.

I checked the New York State Penal Code. Most definitions of homicide say it has to be the death of "another person" but there are two exceptions. One is that there are crimes defined as "causes the death of a police officer or peace officer" and the other is there's a crime of causing the death of a pregnant woman while performing an illegal abortion.
Can you cite those!!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-17-2013, 01:44 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 55,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawbuff View Post
Can you cite those!!
S 125.11 Aggravated criminally negligent homicide.

A person is guilty of aggravated criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he or she causes the death of a police officer or peace officer where such officer was in the course of performing his or her official duties and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that such victim was a police officer or peace officer.

S 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.

A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when:
1. He recklessly causes the death of another person; or
2. He commits upon a female an abortional act which causes her death, unless such abortional act is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three of section 125.05; or
3. He intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide.

S 125.21 Aggravated manslaughter in the second degree.

A person is guilty of aggravated manslaughter in the second degree when he or she recklessly causes the death of a police officer or peace officer where such officer was in the course of performing his or her official duties and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that such victim was a police officer or peace officer.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-17-2013, 01:55 PM
lawbuff lawbuff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Only .11 is relevant, as that is the only one that is a HOMICIDE/MURDER, and that IS the death of another, not self.



Quote:
Originally Posted by lawbuff
Murder has NEVER included suicide, it involves the life of ANOTHER.


While .15 includes suicide, it is of another/assisting, and is not Murder by wording, but Manslaughter, still of another.

Also, while there are fetal homicide laws, that is still the death of another by definition.

Last edited by lawbuff; 08-17-2013 at 01:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-17-2013, 04:06 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: San Juan, PR
Posts: 10,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hail Ants View Post
Not sure if this belongs here or GD, but I figure I'd try for the legal opinions first. If a 15 year old texts a picture of their junk to someone on their own initiative without any provocation, they can be charged with both making & distributing child pornography. But legally isn't this like if you attempted suicide and failed, after sending you to a psych ward or rehab they charge you with attempted murder and sentence you to prison for 20 years?

I realize that the motivation for this latest 'zero tolerance' fad is mostly media hysteria and 'end justifying the means', but doesn't this violate some basic, fundamental, English common law principle in terms of the victim and perpetrator being one & the same?

Like lawbuff said, depends on the specific statute where you are.

The law about child pornography is actually a set of multiple different possible counts: the use of a minor in the production of porn can be and often is a separate, distinct offense from those of production, publishing, distribution, possession of any CP images. And all of them stand by themselves as crimes against the society, regardless of whether the minor would want it dropped once s/he reaches adulthood.

So with the minor who is sexting obscene pics of him/herself, the "use of a minor" charge may be a wash under the perp/victim "principle", but OTOH s/he can still be on the hook because as the law stands, merely saving the image file and uploading it for sharing, are each in and of itself illegal regardless of whose image it is or when was it made.




(And I could believe that a lot of the time, as often happens with the "statutory" sexual assault charge when both are underage, the possibility's brought up more as an intimidation tactic in order to threaten the youths with very dire consequences if they don't cooperate.)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-17-2013, 06:06 PM
Hail Ants Hail Ants is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NY USA
Posts: 5,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
And all of them stand by themselves as crimes against the society, regardless of whether the minor would want it dropped once s/he reaches adulthood.
emphasis mine

Ok, I guess that's the principle it could be based on.

And I used the murder/suicide analogy because I seem to remember hearing that a successful suicide is legally considered a homicide (though not murder) necessitating certain things (police report, autopsy to determine exact cause of death etc.).
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-17-2013, 07:01 PM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
I ran across an article recently that the largest category of new sex offenders on the sex offender registration lists is underage teens. Prosecutors like doing this because it bumps up their conviction stats - "I caught and convicted X sex offenders last year and added them to the list!"

Of course producing CP is illegal, no matter who does it or how or when. Sometimes it is used as a lever or a prosecution when there's not much else:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23716793

With material freely produced by the "victim", it's often the case, as with so many zero-tolerance issues in America, that there is never a situation where prosecutor zeal cannot trump common sense given the right prosecutor.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-17-2013, 07:15 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 55,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawbuff View Post
Only .11 is relevant, as that is the only one that is a HOMICIDE/MURDER, and that IS the death of another, not self.

While .15 includes suicide, it is of another/assisting, and is not Murder by wording, but Manslaughter, still of another.

Also, while there are fetal homicide laws, that is still the death of another by definition.
You're being needlessly nit-picking if you're arguing over the difference between murder and homicide. Yes, there are legal distinctions. But when people say something like "Murder has NEVER included suicide, it involves the life of ANOTHER." it's usually recognized that murder includes the crimes of murder, homicide, and manslaughter.

And where in the text of the laws I quoted do you see a requirement that the person who is killed be another person? (I included the entire S 125.15 so nobody would accuse me of taking stuff out of context but I highlighted the relevant section I was referencing.)

125.11 and 125.21 say a person "causes the death of a police officer or peace officer" - it doesn't say "causes the death of another person who is a police officer or peace officer". So if a police officer kills himself through criminal negligence or recklessness, he caused the death of a police officer and therefore broke the letter of the law.

Same thing with 125.15. If a woman commits an abortional act upon herself which causes her own death, she broke the letter of that law. In fact, the law specifically says this: "Abortional act" means an act committed upon or with respect to a female, whether by another person or by the female herself, whether she is pregnant or not, whether directly upon her body or by the administering, taking or prescription of drugs or in any other manner, with intent to cause a miscarriage of such female.

Obviously in these cases, we're assuming the crimes were attempted only and not successful.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 08-17-2013 at 07:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-17-2013, 07:33 PM
drewtwo99 drewtwo99 is online now
Wannabe Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 7,926
I don't know how well the analogies hold up, but I have two opinions here basically.

1)Lower legal adulthood in *all* aspects to 16. Give 16 year old human beings the right to fuck, smoke, drink, enter contracts, drive cars, vote, enter gainful employment, drop out of school, move out of the house onto their own, etc, as full adults. Full stop. No exceptions.

2)Charge people who are 15 years or younger who create and distribute child pornography as juveniles, send them to juvenile prisons or make them do community service, or whatever, and like most (all?) juvenile offenses, let it fall off the record once they turn 16 and become legal adults. Never allow there to be any registered sex offender list for juveniles, or if there is, get them removed from it once they turn 16.

If you aren't willing to give me (1), then at least give society (2) (but change it to 17 years or younger) so that juveniles who sext don't have a permanent criminal record.

Last edited by drewtwo99; 08-17-2013 at 07:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-18-2013, 12:05 AM
madsircool madsircool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Since the section of the male brain that controls impulse doesnt fully mature until our 20s your suggestion isnt the most responsible one.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-18-2013, 12:51 AM
Flyer Flyer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
Since the section of the male brain that controls impulse doesnt fully mature until our 20s your suggestion isnt the most responsible one.
So is it your contention that people should not be allowed to drive (i.e. be allowed to operate powerful machinery in a manner where literally a second of inattention can have deadly effects) until they're 25 or so?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-18-2013, 01:03 AM
Grumman Grumman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewtwo99 View Post
If you aren't willing to give me (1), then at least give society (2) (but change it to 17 years or younger) so that juveniles who sext don't have a permanent criminal record.
Juveniles who sext shouldn't have a permanent criminal record because they shouldn't be charged, period. It's the same ass-backwards mindset that considers a twenty year old a criminal if they drink alcohol instead of someone you're supposed to be protecting.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-18-2013, 07:33 AM
Bozuit Bozuit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
You're being needlessly nit-picking if you're arguing over the difference between murder and homicide. Yes, there are legal distinctions. But when people say something like "Murder has NEVER included suicide, it involves the life of ANOTHER." it's usually recognized that murder includes the crimes of murder, homicide, and manslaughter.
I wouldn't agree with this. Homicide is killing a person, which includes murder and manslaughter. Although some people may not understand the distinction between homicide and murder, anyone using "murder" to mean "manslaughter" is just wrong, and I wouldn't think that's very common.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumman View Post
Juveniles who sext shouldn't have a permanent criminal record because they shouldn't be charged, period. It's the same ass-backwards mindset that considers a twenty year old a criminal if they drink alcohol instead of someone you're supposed to be protecting.
Potentially a 20 year old who just returned to their own house, spouse and kids after a few months of serving in Afghanistan.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-18-2013, 10:27 AM
Justin_Bailey Justin_Bailey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumman View Post
There are quite a few edge cases around child pornography where the law is stupid. Like how it's perfectly legal to have sex with your seventeen year old girlfriend, but not to see a photo of them naked.
Mind = Blown

You get it pounded into your head from a young age that 18 is the age of majority. So it's easy to forget that most states have statutory rape laws stating an "adult" who is legally able to have sex with whomever they choose is someone over 16 or 17. Seeing them put together like that just makes me go
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-18-2013, 02:09 PM
drewtwo99 drewtwo99 is online now
Wannabe Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 7,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumman View Post
Juveniles who sext shouldn't have a permanent criminal record because they shouldn't be charged, period. It's the same ass-backwards mindset that considers a twenty year old a criminal if they drink alcohol instead of someone you're supposed to be protecting.
I agree, Grumman. 100%. I don't know if a 15 year old or younger should be able to take naughty pictures of themselves and send them around, but at 16, definitely. But even a 15 year old who does it should get at most some community service time, and a slap on the wrist. Throwing them in prison and slapping a sex offender label on them does not a safer society make.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-18-2013, 03:36 PM
alphaboi867 alphaboi867 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 11,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey View Post
Mind = Blown

You get it pounded into your head from a young age that 18 is the age of majority. So it's easy to forget that most states have statutory rape laws stating an "adult" who is legally able to have sex with whomever they choose is someone over 16 or 17. Seeing them put together like that just makes me go
It's 18 in California, which is where most film & TV shows are made. Writers have a tendency to assume that things in the rest of the country work the same way they do in CA, even when that's often not the case. Queer as Folk fell into the same trap (despite being filmed in Toronto); 17 yr old Justin was considered jailbait in the first season despite the age of consent in PA being 16 (in the UK version he was 15 when the age of consent of gay sex was 18).
__________________
No Gods, No Masters
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-18-2013, 03:38 PM
Canadjun Canadjun is offline
Non sum ergo non cogito
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alberta Canada
Posts: 3,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
S 125.11 Aggravated criminally negligent homicide.

A person is guilty of aggravated criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he or she causes the death of a police officer or peace officer where such officer was in the course of performing his or her official duties and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that such victim was a police officer or peace officer.

...

S 125.21 Aggravated manslaughter in the second degree.

A person is guilty of aggravated manslaughter in the second degree when he or she recklessly causes the death of a police officer or peace officer where such officer was in the course of performing his or her official duties and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that such victim was a police officer or peace officer.
Trying to picture how a police officer/peace officer could be considered to be "in the course of performing his or her official duties" when the officer is committing or attempting to commit suicide. The "official duties" aspect would seem to imply that these sections also relate to killing someone else.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-18-2013, 04:24 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: San Juan, PR
Posts: 10,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaboi867 View Post
It's 18 in California, which is where most film & TV shows are made. Writers have a tendency to assume that things in the rest of the country work the same way they do in CA, even when that's often not the case.
Sometimes I wonder if it may be a conscious or unconscious move to avoid being seen as advocating teen sex. But so often they also portray other elements of civil, criminal and administrative law and the functioning of public services and entities as if everywhere were California, that it's more likely just feeling it would be too much trouble to explain that "in [Maryland/NYC/Florida], it's different!".
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-18-2013, 05:30 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 13,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadjun View Post
Trying to picture how a police officer/peace officer could be considered to be "in the course of performing his or her official duties" when the officer is committing or attempting to commit suicide. The "official duties" aspect would seem to imply that these sections also relate to killing someone else.
I don't know about American law, but in French law, the equivalent of "in the course of performing his or her official duties" could be understood rather broadly. So I'm not convinced it wouldn't be the same under American law. I can see "sitting at his desk at the police station playing Tetris" falling under this clause, for instance.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-18-2013, 07:15 PM
Evil Captor Evil Captor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawbuff View Post
Murder has NEVER included suicide, it involves the life of ANOTHER.
No wonder all of my suicide attempts have been so unsuccessful ... and made so many people mad at me!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-18-2013, 08:33 PM
YogSosoth YogSosoth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
I should like to see what kind of messed up childhood the prosecutor had for charging a kid like that
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 10:11 PM.


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.