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?
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.
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.
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:
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
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.
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.)
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.).
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
Potentially a 20 year old who just returned to their own house, spouse and kids after a few months of serving in Afghanistan.
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 :smack:
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.
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).