Oh please. He’s gonna have to explain to everyone that he’s a grower, not a shower and deal with being THAT GUY for a while. Throw some community service at him and make him pay for everyone that wants a dick-less yearbook.
I’ll ignore the “kids these days face no consequences anymore” tone, because that’s a whole new discussion.
I disagree with this completely. Maybe because I have worked on yearbook committees and this may have certainly slipped by me. Large high schools have yearbooks with hundreds of pages & you are under severe deadlines to get everything arranged and into the publishing company so kids can have their yearbooks during the last week of school. It would never have even occurred to me to scour each sports team photo to see if anyone was showing off their dick. The football team submits their photo–I put it on the football team’s page. Period.
As far as criminal charges for this? Pure insanity.
Give the kid a bunch of stickers and have him put one over his exposed penis in every yearbook. Having him pay $68,000 to reprint them is stupid.
Very glad sanity prevailed. Now the kid can focus on college and his future.
Actually, the consequences were not severe enough. In addition to a decade or two in solitary, he should have his penis forcibly removed and have an image thereof tattooed to his forehead. It’s the only way kids will learn.
The sticker idea makes sense. It would be pretty silly to reprint just for this.
Community service would have been a more than adequate punishment. As a “prank”, it definitely crosses the line, but there’s no need to treat the guy like a hardened (heh) criminal.
And I’m not one to be soft (heh) on flashers, either. When I was in high school, one of the boys in my science class took out his dick and waggled it at me. I suppose he thought it was funny, but I took it as an aggressive act - it really upset me. Photo dick guy, though, didn’t seem to be directing it at anyone, and everyone there was male, and had probably already seen him naked in the locker room, so - yeah, terrible idea for a prank, but I’m glad they dropped the ridiculous charges.
Everyone arguing for community service: wouldn’t he need to be convicted of some crime in order to be sentenced? Otherwise, what stops him from saying, “Fuck you!”?
Haven’t followed this story closely…from what I gather it was very difficult to spot the penis in the picture, yes? Leading me to the question, how do we know it was the kid’s penis? Could the kid have said it was a dildo, a handle of a screwdriver, a contraption made of Popsicle sticks? Would there have been any way of proving the penis-hood of the object in question? And if it had been a dildo, a handle, a few Popsicle sticks, is it indecent exposure if it’s possible to mistake it for actual genitalia? How exactly would that work?
Jesus fuckin Christ. if the picture offends you grab a sharpie and black it out and move on.
When I was in HS we had a yearbook advisor who reviewed every proof the printer sent and either approved or no of everything. Every year a group of boys would get called to the office because they were trying to give the bird in their photos. If the printers still send proofs, it is the onus of the yearbook committee and their faculty advisor to make sure that these type of things don’t make it to the final copy.
Yeah, the “child” is a pervert. Public exposure of the genitals is pretty common among perverts. I worked with sex offenders his age and under for several years and, as a result, I don’t buy the “just a child” excuse. He exposed his junk with the intent to cause a reaction, just like the cliched middled-aged flasher in a trench coat. He got a reaction.
When I was on the Yearbook committee, we deliberately let a couple pictures like this through, just as a joke on the school authorities, and to see if anybody would catch them. Mostly they didn’t.
(It helped to have a couple of deaf kids in our class, who taught us a few sign-language sayings.)
A plea deal to avoid prosecution could have resulted in community service and no jail time. I was hoping that would happen instead of ruining the kid’s life over a stupid school prank.
But they’ve dropped charges altogether and that’s even a better outcome.
You seem to be confusing indicative and sufficient very very badly here.
How many people have you known who publicly displayed their genitals with intent to cause a reaction but who were not perverts? This man deliberately displayed his penis to non-consenting people with the intent to provoke a reaction. That is unequivocally a sex offense. YMMV, but after having worked with them, I go with “if it quacks like a pervert then it is a pervert.”
What’s a pervert? Without a definition I can’t answer your question. I’m not very interested in what constitutes a “sex offence” since there are any number of things that are criminalised in this area that should not be.
Yes, there are things that are criminalized as sex offenses that should not be. Do you consider deliberate public display of the genitals to non-consenting people and with the intent to provoke a reaction one of those things?
Were you going to define pervert?
No I don’t think that should be a sex offense. For a start it doesn’t involve sex.
Weinie-waggers have been considered sex offenders since the concept of sex offenses became part of the law of the land. Good luck in getting that changed, most people are not going to agree with you. A good definition of pervert for a situation like this is one who involves non-consenting people in his sexual activities for his own amusement and pleasure. That’s what this guy did. It wasn’t an accident. He made a decision, specifically, to display his genitals to the camera in order to shock people. Would you be as sanguine if he displayed his doodle to your wife or child?
Proof is in the pudding is in the eating. Still enough prudish puritanicals to make life miserable for everyone else. Certainly not the only example in this thread.
