I think it is very telling that the girl wasn't also charged.
Don't get me wrong, I think it is utterly crazy that ANYONE was charged in this case. It is a victimless crime. But reading between the lines there's a certain puritanical undertone to all of it.
In most other Western countries this would not be illegal in this way. But the US is extremely religious and has quite an unhealthy attitude to teenage sex (which ironically results in one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the Western world also).
I genuinely wonder how the people who preside over cases like this (e.g. cops, prosecutor, even the judge) sleep at night. They're actually doing more harm to everyone (including society) than the supposed "crime."
> As Judith Levine notes in Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex: “One striking pair of contradictory trends: as we raise the age of consent for sex, we lower the age at which a wrongdoing child may be tried and sentenced as an adult criminal. Both, needless to say, are ‘in the best interests’ of the child and society.” We want teenagers to be adults when they commit crimes and “children” when they have sex, which tells you more about our culture than about teenagers.
> And, as Laurie Schaffner points out in a separate essay collection, “[...] in certain jurisdictions, young people may not purchase alcohol until their twenty-first birthday, or may be vulnerable plaintiffs in a statutory rape case at 17 years of age, yet may be sentenced to death for crimes committed at age 15 [....]”
> Laws, including those embodied in Face Forward, reflect race and gender norms: white girls are the primary target of age-of-consent laws, while African American youth are the target of laws around crime and delinquency. The contradictory trends are readily explained by something rather unpleasant in society.
I agree. The sexist double standard in statutory rape convictions where both parties are underage is not only incredibly unjust to young males but insulting to the young women. It sends the message while teenage guys have the ability to make informed and mature decisions about sex, teenage girls who choose to have sex or engage in other sexual behaviors (such as sexting) are just silly little girls who don't know what they're doing and should be protected.
The girl's mother filed a complaint, the boy's mother presumably didn't. So it doesn't necessarily say much that the boy was charged but the girl wasn't.
> In most other Western countries this would not be illegal in this way.
I'm not sure about that. Possession of child pornography is a serious crime in most Western countries, and the courts don't really care about excuses, explanations, or the fact that the crime is victim-less. Actually, in most countries, even non-child porn that looks like child porn is illegal (drawings, computer-generated images, adult actors that look like children, ...).
"there's a certain puritanical undertone to all of it" which is ironic since those pure public officials want/need to violate the teenager in order to maintain their pure/innocent perception.
The idea of taking a male teen and stimulating his penis to erection for the purposes of the prosecution sounds nuts, but the nutty part is that it doesn't sounds nuts to the Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney. Granted, she may just be saying that as a negotiation tactic, but even that is sociopathic.
But, man, if I lived in that area I would be running for election come the next round, and I'd beat this story into the ground for the entire campaign. Not that I'd want the job. I've run for office, and thankfully lost thus far. But this is one of those times that it's better to have someone who doesn't know what they're doing (and believe me, there are few less qualified for the job of AG of VA than I) than to let these nutcases continue to run the asylum.
In this hypothetical case, were I to lose and the incumbents stayed in, this would be the sign for any VA resident to get the hell out as your neighbors obviously think this is okay.
As an aside, "special <penis matching> software". Man, I've heard of some verticals in my day, but I'm hoping that's an outrageously small market. (Of course, the guy they quoted is just bullshitting.)
I read that article very carefully and the whole crazy claim comes from the defense lawyer, who has a vested interest in portraying the prosecution as massively overstepping their bounds. I'm skeptical that they actually threatened to drag the kid down to the hospital and give him an involuntary erection so they can take photos of it. And I'm even more skeptical that they'd actually try to do it.
Note the quote from the Commonwealth Attorney: Prince William County Commonwealth’s Attorney Paul B. Ebert said that police told him “these allegations [by the lawyers] lack credibility.” They're saying that it's not credible that the threat actually occurred, which likely means that even if it did, they realize how stupid it would be to actually follow through with it at this point.
Don't get me wrong, I'm against the idea of them prosecuting the kid for sending dick pictures, but I'd like to see that fail on its own (lack of) merit.
"But, man, if I lived in that area I would be running for election come the next round, and I'd beat this story into the ground for the entire campaign."
The "root" of all this evil is the fact that politicians have little incentive and much disincentive to run on a platform (or mention an issue) where they would actually even come close to touching a subject like this with a ten foot pool.
I mean if there ever was a third rail it is this entire subject.
I'm not really sure if I'm in the minority or not, but I really don't see a crime happening here. Maybe you ground them and take away their phones, but, I mean, these kids are under the guardianship of their parents and are presumably in a relationship that both sets of parents have (at the very least) acknowledged. It's not like he just sent her the video out of the blue with no warning.
I don't see a crime here, when both parties are in a relationship and both consent to the transaction.
I really hope you aren't in the minority. I agree with you. I find it absurd that it's a crime for 2 dating teenagers to be "sexting". The worse part is when one is 18 and the other is 16 or 17 or something (depending on where you live laws are different). The things they be charged with is absurd. And then as a bonus they get to be on the sex predators database for the rest of their lives for having consensual sex with their significant others.
The strangest thing about this is that the boy is considered both the victim and the perpetrator of the crime.
The teen is facing two felony charges, for possession of child pornography and manufacturing child pornography
The only thing he's being charged with is manufacturing and possessing pictures of himself. These laws obviously exist to protect children from predators and in this case, the district attorney is saying that he is both the child and the predator. It's a preposterous (though not unprecedented) use of these laws.
It's quite clear the the mother doesn't approve of this relationship and she is using the law to clamp down on it. There may be something about the relationship that offends some people's sensibilities (ex: interclass or interracial dating) which is providing the DA cover to do this nonsense.
You're thinking logically, it really is the rest of the world that's crazy in this case. Two teens, in a relationship, who can legally have sex with each other (and likely have) what is the fuss about?
No, your opinion falls under "common sense" and "healthy attitude towards sexuality" – two traits that quite a number of members of our species seem to lack.
I agree. This is a completely victim-less "crime". The part that bothers me the most, however, is that the girlfriend is not being charged too. Explain that.
EDIT: Not that I think either of them should be charged, just that if one is, they both should be.
You're likely not in the minority by being in the group that would look at this case and think, what a load of nonsensical bullshit, this obviously is contrary to justice and is harming everyone much more than the original "offending" act thereby victimizing all involved regardless of guilt or affiliation to the act.
You however would be in the minority if you were upset about the atrocious state of sex laws and their enforcement/sentencing (with mandatory sentencing provisions in most cases) so much so that you felt compelled to support the reform of sex laws and registry requirements (a subject that few would touch with a pole of any length). But you wouldn't be alone.
Even Patty Wetterling, board chair of the National Center for Exploited and Missing Children, has stated that "We've cast such a broad net that we're catching a lot of juveniles who did something stupid or different types of offenders who just screwed up.. They are very different from the man who took Jacob" referring to her son who was abducted as a young child.
Considering how inaccurate news reports tend to be when it's about something you are personally aware of, I'm guessing this article was pretty much written by the defense lawyer in an attempt to paint the prosecutor in a bad light. You have no idea how many important details could have been left out.
While I think most people generally agree, the idea here is that a minor can't legally 'consent' because they supposedly aren't mature enough to make decisions for themselves.
The government in this case has completely lost its mind. Let's recap here:
A teenage girl sent pictures to her teenage boyfriend. He is now charged with receiving child pornography.
The teenage boy sent a video back to his teenage girlfriend. He is now charged with manufacturing child pornography.
In order to gather evidence, the government is seeking a warrant to take sexual pictures of the person whose own self-produced picture is considered child pornography.
The authorities have stated that they are doing this to warn kids of the dangers of sexting. The dangers are, precisely, that the government is out of their fucking mind and will go to any length to prosecute people over any absurd bullshit it possibly can.
"the case began when the teen’s 15-year-old girlfriend sent photos of herself to the 17-year-old, who in turn sent her the video in question."
For fuck's sake.
Actual intercourse between the two would be punishable by at most a $250 fine in Virginia since the boy is a minor and the girl is less than three years younger - if anyone was wondering.
"Police also arrested the teen and took him to juvenile jail, where Foster said they took photos of the teen’s genitals against his will." - charge the police with creation and possession of child pornography.
The case is absurd. The prosecutor in the case is trying to make a name for himself, and unfortunately in our system that is completely legal.
However, requesting, issuing, and following this order could quite easily fall under conspiracy to produce child pornography. The prosecutor that made the request, any doctors involved, the judge that signed the order, and the police involved in carrying it out could potentially all be federally indicted and/or sued for this. They are immune from prosecution and lawsuits except in cases of blatantly illegal conduct, where this clearly falls.
This is insane, no doubt, but a bit of context for those who haven't seen this happen before. I was in a very similar situation many years ago before sexting.
Most times an 17-year-old dates somebody a year or two younger and everything is fine: nobody cares what they're doing. Parents like the kid, the kids behave well, and nobody is the wiser.
Every now and then, however, mom and dad hate the bozo that's dating little Chris. So they try to stop it, but that doesn't work. So they drag the cops in and demand that somebody "do something" Over the years, more and more laws have been set up to "do something", usually about child predation, not this scenario.
In most of these cases, the cops try to calm things down by trying to de-escalate. But sometimes this does not work, so the Commonwealth's Attorney throws the book at the older partner.
It gets worse when the older kid is 17 because there's a time element to it. You charge them as a 17-year-old, they've got a chance to have it all expunged when they reach adulthood. You charge them as an 18-year-old, the mess just gets bigger. Meanwhile the parents (and perhaps the community) is out for blood.
I was lucky in that no charges were pressed, but parents can get very angry -- like come over to your house and shoot you angry. The law in this case is probably the lesser of two evils. I imagine the way the cops want it to play out is that the DA charges the adult with 57 felonies, the kid gets a lawyer, they strike a deal and reduce them all to a misdemeanor and probabtion with the condition that the dating pair stay apart. Parents are happy, society is happy.
I'm not saying I agree with any of this. It's completely nuts. And you can always run into a true believer DA who really is on a crusade. Quite frankly this erect penis nonsense sounds like that might be what we have here. And that's a freaking scary situation. But most of the time this is just a case of using a hammer to kill a fly that keeps landing on your knee.
Having said all of that, the law is insane and must be fixed. Just wanted to point out that sometimes these things don't look as completely crazy from the inside as they do from the outside.
After reading that I got outraged like everyone else, but thinking about this again, I believe @fragsworth downthread has a good point [0].
Because what is more likely - that the prosecution went batshit insane, or that the journalist is plain lying to us, omitting relevant details in order to spin it into a small scandal? Hint: think of every time a story was reported about something you had first-hand knowledge about.
There's a widely known scandal in my country that is often repeated as an argument for the great injustice of our IRS. The story, as told by national TV and paper, is that a baker was ruthlessly taxed (and subsequently put out of business) for leftover bread that he gave to an orphanage for free instead throwing it away. "Oh, the evil government is punishing good people", cried the nation. It grew into such a big media mess that the IRS decided to publish a detailed report from tax control of this baker. Apparently, apart from giving food to poor, he was also running a tax avoidance scheme on half of his merchandise, stealing tons of money.
So please just keep in mind that spreading blatant lies is the basic principle news publishing nowdays.
Boy am I glad smartphones weren't a thing when I was in high school! I'd be off the wrong end of death row already - along with almost everyone in my graduating class.
How is this not rape and manufacturing child pornography (by the police)? If they intend to forcefully give him an erection and take naked pictures of him, it sure sounds like it.
My first reaction was that the absurdity level is so high, there has to be an ulterior motive for the prosecutor here, to expose how ridiculous it is to prosecute children for normal, healthy (if potentially socially risky) sexual experimentation.
So, basically, in order to protect him from himself, they are going to engage in many of the abusive behaviors child pornography laws are intended to protect children from, and then put him in jail.
[+] [-] Someone1234|11 years ago|reply
Don't get me wrong, I think it is utterly crazy that ANYONE was charged in this case. It is a victimless crime. But reading between the lines there's a certain puritanical undertone to all of it.
In most other Western countries this would not be illegal in this way. But the US is extremely religious and has quite an unhealthy attitude to teenage sex (which ironically results in one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the Western world also).
I genuinely wonder how the people who preside over cases like this (e.g. cops, prosecutor, even the judge) sleep at night. They're actually doing more harm to everyone (including society) than the supposed "crime."
[+] [-] jseliger|11 years ago|reply
This is fairly common, as I first wrote here, in a different context (http://blog.seliger.com/2013/04/24/you-dont-forget-your-firs...):
> As Judith Levine notes in Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex: “One striking pair of contradictory trends: as we raise the age of consent for sex, we lower the age at which a wrongdoing child may be tried and sentenced as an adult criminal. Both, needless to say, are ‘in the best interests’ of the child and society.” We want teenagers to be adults when they commit crimes and “children” when they have sex, which tells you more about our culture than about teenagers.
> And, as Laurie Schaffner points out in a separate essay collection, “[...] in certain jurisdictions, young people may not purchase alcohol until their twenty-first birthday, or may be vulnerable plaintiffs in a statutory rape case at 17 years of age, yet may be sentenced to death for crimes committed at age 15 [....]”
> Laws, including those embodied in Face Forward, reflect race and gender norms: white girls are the primary target of age-of-consent laws, while African American youth are the target of laws around crime and delinquency. The contradictory trends are readily explained by something rather unpleasant in society.
[+] [-] gms7777|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|11 years ago|reply
The rest of your comment still stands, though.
[+] [-] tomp|11 years ago|reply
I'm not sure about that. Possession of child pornography is a serious crime in most Western countries, and the courts don't really care about excuses, explanations, or the fact that the crime is victim-less. Actually, in most countries, even non-child porn that looks like child porn is illegal (drawings, computer-generated images, adult actors that look like children, ...).
[+] [-] jrs235|11 years ago|reply
"But the US is extremely religious"
I think you mean "the US is extremely prude"
[+] [-] mikestew|11 years ago|reply
But, man, if I lived in that area I would be running for election come the next round, and I'd beat this story into the ground for the entire campaign. Not that I'd want the job. I've run for office, and thankfully lost thus far. But this is one of those times that it's better to have someone who doesn't know what they're doing (and believe me, there are few less qualified for the job of AG of VA than I) than to let these nutcases continue to run the asylum.
In this hypothetical case, were I to lose and the incumbents stayed in, this would be the sign for any VA resident to get the hell out as your neighbors obviously think this is okay.
As an aside, "special <penis matching> software". Man, I've heard of some verticals in my day, but I'm hoping that's an outrageously small market. (Of course, the guy they quoted is just bullshitting.)
[+] [-] spodek|11 years ago|reply
There's no other way to put it.
(Besides the sexist application of a misguided law)
[+] [-] hamburglar|11 years ago|reply
Note the quote from the Commonwealth Attorney: Prince William County Commonwealth’s Attorney Paul B. Ebert said that police told him “these allegations [by the lawyers] lack credibility.” They're saying that it's not credible that the threat actually occurred, which likely means that even if it did, they realize how stupid it would be to actually follow through with it at this point.
Don't get me wrong, I'm against the idea of them prosecuting the kid for sending dick pictures, but I'd like to see that fail on its own (lack of) merit.
[+] [-] alttab|11 years ago|reply
>> Man, I've heard of some verticals in my day, but I'm hoping that's an outrageously small market.
Well played.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] larrys|11 years ago|reply
The "root" of all this evil is the fact that politicians have little incentive and much disincentive to run on a platform (or mention an issue) where they would actually even come close to touching a subject like this with a ten foot pool.
I mean if there ever was a third rail it is this entire subject.
[+] [-] tankenmate|11 years ago|reply
http://www.vsb.org/site/regulation/inquiry
[+] [-] Jemaclus|11 years ago|reply
I don't see a crime here, when both parties are in a relationship and both consent to the transaction.
I dunno. Maybe I'm naive or something.
[+] [-] clarky07|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 300bps|11 years ago|reply
The teen is facing two felony charges, for possession of child pornography and manufacturing child pornography
The only thing he's being charged with is manufacturing and possessing pictures of himself. These laws obviously exist to protect children from predators and in this case, the district attorney is saying that he is both the child and the predator. It's a preposterous (though not unprecedented) use of these laws.
It's quite clear the the mother doesn't approve of this relationship and she is using the law to clamp down on it. There may be something about the relationship that offends some people's sensibilities (ex: interclass or interracial dating) which is providing the DA cover to do this nonsense.
[+] [-] eloff|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adwn|11 years ago|reply
No, your opinion falls under "common sense" and "healthy attitude towards sexuality" – two traits that quite a number of members of our species seem to lack.
[+] [-] mpthrapp|11 years ago|reply
EDIT: Not that I think either of them should be charged, just that if one is, they both should be.
[+] [-] chrisgd|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] h4pless|11 years ago|reply
You however would be in the minority if you were upset about the atrocious state of sex laws and their enforcement/sentencing (with mandatory sentencing provisions in most cases) so much so that you felt compelled to support the reform of sex laws and registry requirements (a subject that few would touch with a pole of any length). But you wouldn't be alone.
Even Patty Wetterling, board chair of the National Center for Exploited and Missing Children, has stated that "We've cast such a broad net that we're catching a lot of juveniles who did something stupid or different types of offenders who just screwed up.. They are very different from the man who took Jacob" referring to her son who was abducted as a young child.
Speaking of which: My Son, the Sex Offender: One Mother's Mission to Fight the Law (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/my-son-sex-offender-one-...)
[+] [-] fragsworth|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jtokoph|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fardoche|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jcromartie|11 years ago|reply
A teenage girl sent pictures to her teenage boyfriend. He is now charged with receiving child pornography.
The teenage boy sent a video back to his teenage girlfriend. He is now charged with manufacturing child pornography.
In order to gather evidence, the government is seeking a warrant to take sexual pictures of the person whose own self-produced picture is considered child pornography.
The authorities have stated that they are doing this to warn kids of the dangers of sexting. The dangers are, precisely, that the government is out of their fucking mind and will go to any length to prosecute people over any absurd bullshit it possibly can.
[+] [-] antidaily|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ignu|11 years ago|reply
Makes sense.
[+] [-] cwt|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] byerley|11 years ago|reply
For fuck's sake.
Actual intercourse between the two would be punishable by at most a $250 fine in Virginia since the boy is a minor and the girl is less than three years younger - if anyone was wondering.
[+] [-] jules|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moomin|11 years ago|reply
If not, exactly what else is legal if you've got a "search warrant"? Securities Fraud? Drug dealing? Arson? Murder?
[+] [-] lazyant|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanBC|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrockway|11 years ago|reply
This is wrong on so many levels that I'm getting a headache.
[+] [-] downandout|11 years ago|reply
However, requesting, issuing, and following this order could quite easily fall under conspiracy to produce child pornography. The prosecutor that made the request, any doctors involved, the judge that signed the order, and the police involved in carrying it out could potentially all be federally indicted and/or sued for this. They are immune from prosecution and lawsuits except in cases of blatantly illegal conduct, where this clearly falls.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|11 years ago|reply
Most times an 17-year-old dates somebody a year or two younger and everything is fine: nobody cares what they're doing. Parents like the kid, the kids behave well, and nobody is the wiser.
Every now and then, however, mom and dad hate the bozo that's dating little Chris. So they try to stop it, but that doesn't work. So they drag the cops in and demand that somebody "do something" Over the years, more and more laws have been set up to "do something", usually about child predation, not this scenario.
In most of these cases, the cops try to calm things down by trying to de-escalate. But sometimes this does not work, so the Commonwealth's Attorney throws the book at the older partner.
It gets worse when the older kid is 17 because there's a time element to it. You charge them as a 17-year-old, they've got a chance to have it all expunged when they reach adulthood. You charge them as an 18-year-old, the mess just gets bigger. Meanwhile the parents (and perhaps the community) is out for blood.
I was lucky in that no charges were pressed, but parents can get very angry -- like come over to your house and shoot you angry. The law in this case is probably the lesser of two evils. I imagine the way the cops want it to play out is that the DA charges the adult with 57 felonies, the kid gets a lawyer, they strike a deal and reduce them all to a misdemeanor and probabtion with the condition that the dating pair stay apart. Parents are happy, society is happy.
I'm not saying I agree with any of this. It's completely nuts. And you can always run into a true believer DA who really is on a crusade. Quite frankly this erect penis nonsense sounds like that might be what we have here. And that's a freaking scary situation. But most of the time this is just a case of using a hammer to kill a fly that keeps landing on your knee.
Having said all of that, the law is insane and must be fixed. Just wanted to point out that sometimes these things don't look as completely crazy from the inside as they do from the outside.
[+] [-] nmrm|11 years ago|reply
Except the kid, who will now have to live with legally sanctioned sexual assault.
[+] [-] TeMPOraL|11 years ago|reply
Because what is more likely - that the prosecution went batshit insane, or that the journalist is plain lying to us, omitting relevant details in order to spin it into a small scandal? Hint: think of every time a story was reported about something you had first-hand knowledge about.
There's a widely known scandal in my country that is often repeated as an argument for the great injustice of our IRS. The story, as told by national TV and paper, is that a baker was ruthlessly taxed (and subsequently put out of business) for leftover bread that he gave to an orphanage for free instead throwing it away. "Oh, the evil government is punishing good people", cried the nation. It grew into such a big media mess that the IRS decided to publish a detailed report from tax control of this baker. Apparently, apart from giving food to poor, he was also running a tax avoidance scheme on half of his merchandise, stealing tons of money.
So please just keep in mind that spreading blatant lies is the basic principle news publishing nowdays.
[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8010752
[+] [-] NDizzle|11 years ago|reply
Boy am I glad smartphones weren't a thing when I was in high school! I'd be off the wrong end of death row already - along with almost everyone in my graduating class.
[+] [-] tokenizerrr|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scelerat|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] whiddershins|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csense|11 years ago|reply
If this is "search" is carried out, I would want to see every one of the participating officers and medical personnel go to jail for rape.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hoggle|11 years ago|reply