Acting Your Age Continues To Be A Felony
I keep posting about this because it keeps happening. From the Chicago Tribune, yet another case of teens being recast as child exploiters and kiddie pornographers. Who are they exploiting? Um...themselves. Kristen Schorsch reports:
Last week, two middle school students in Valparaiso, Ind., were caught sending nude pictures of themselves to each other on their cell phones. The students were caught when the 13-year-old girl's cell phone rang in class, and her teacher confiscated it, according to a police report. The girl cried that she would get in trouble because a 12-year-old boy sent her a "dirty picture."The boy sent the girl a picture of his genitals and requested that she do the same, the report said. The girl then texted him a picture of her naked, police said.
The students have been charged with child exploitation and possession of child pornography, both felonies. They were referred to the county's juvenile probation department, which will determine whether authorities pursue or drop the charges, Gensel said. If convicted, the students could be required to register as sex offenders, he said.
If, increasingly, sex offenders are just teens who got caught goofing off, the label "sex offender" should eventually lose some of its stigma. Uh...don't think that's a good thing, and it's especially not a good thing that a minor violation that should be dealt with with a stern talking-to by parents ends up dogging kids for the rest of their lives.
We're really funny about nudity in this country. As I wrote the other day, a sturdy blonde lady felt me up at the Vegas airport to make sure that it was just boob material in my bra; that I wasn't going to go all exploding breastesses for Allah.
Well, I don't like being touched by people I don't want to be touched by, so I offered to just lift up my sweater and show her my boobs. Declined. Firmly declined. And I got the distinct impression that there might be an arrest in my future if my sweater and I lifted and separated.
Meanwhile, in France, there are exposed nipples on the subway (Relax! They're in posters!), and their society isn't collapsing. Well, not from the exposed nipples, anyway.
I think the rationale behind this is money for the state department. These two kids, who simply did a hi-tech version of what kids have been doing for centuries (Yes, Laura Ingalls probably flashed her boobs to Andrew Garvey.), will likely be pursued because it's simply a way for the state to make money.
A friend of mine is a registered sex offender for something he did that doesn't deserve that label, so now he's a convenient cash cow for the state of Florida. He got arrested and paid massive fines because he started to take college courses and neglected to tell the state. It was ruled an innocent mistake, but that didn't get his money back. And if he ever desires to get his sex offender status revoked, some lucky lawyer will make in the neighborhood of $300K.
Sex offender laws will not likely be revisited in the near future. There's simply too much money to be made in it.
Patrick at February 2, 2010 1:15 AM
I wonder what you would learn if you asked, one by one, parents, law enforcement officials, and legislators if they thought sex offender laws as applied in this case were actually a good thing.
I can't imagine a majority of people favor putting young teens on the sex offender list for actions like those described above, but somebody must be supporting it. I wonder where that critical mass of support really is.
old rpm daddy at February 2, 2010 3:29 AM
Current law enforcement believes that "sexting" has gotten out of control and want to teach these kids a lesson. So, they are using these kids as an example. I will agree that "sexting" has been running rampant and something needs to be done to warn these kids about the consequences, but prosecuting them and putting them on a sex offender list just ridiculous. The sex offender list should be reserved for those who actually committ sex crimes.
This sexting really isn't all that new though. Sexting is really just the new version of old fashioned love letters that were laced with sexual innuendo and graphic visuals and wording. The only difference is the technology used to send these letters has gotten better. Now you get a picture instead of a crudly drawn picture and a description using actual words. Do I think that these kids should be more careful and do I think they should be punished in some way? Sure. Do I think punishment should be in a court of law? No.
Sabrina at February 2, 2010 5:06 AM
Aside from the horrific fact this could ruin the next 60+ years of these people's lives (convicted sex offender? have fun getting a good job...), it will probably destroy them emotionally.
Think about it:
You do something kinda dumb when you're 12 or 13 and the government calls you a criminal - a sexual deviant. Showing your privates to people very casual-like isn't the best way to gain respect and it might make you feel a little icky afterward. Like Amy said, this is a great teachable moment for parents to explain why it's not a good idea to do that (from the fact this new technology immortalizes your pre pubescent boobies on someone's phone, and also, because if you want boys to treat you well, this isn't the best way to achieve such a goal. Save the nudie pic texts for your long term relationships.).
So now we're telling a generation of children that they and their bodies are disgusting and criminal. That interacting in this way - which is driven by pure curiosity - is not natural and must be completely eliminated from society. Your sexual urges are dirty! You are dirty! Die whore, die!
What's that WWII film, in a rubble-y Germany, and the boys pay some girl like five pfennig to show them her private bits? They told her it looks like she's got ants in her pants...Anyone? My dad always turned the station when that part came on. One time I outsmarted him by sneaking upstairs to see what happened. I was enthralled, a little shocked and I laughed. That was irrelevant but I thought I'd add in a little anecdote.
Gretchen at February 2, 2010 5:08 AM
Maybe this is how they plan to introduce population control. The ones on the sex offender list that don't kill themselves because life is nearly impossible will certainly never be intimate with another human being.
Population problem solved! And without all those messy pogroms or ethically-gray tainting the food-supply issues.
brian at February 2, 2010 5:51 AM
As Patrick stated in post # 1 it is a money issue.
More arrests and more publicity equals more money and bigger budgets.
David M. at February 2, 2010 5:51 AM
If a teacher caught someone 6o years ago exposing themselves to another person, there would be a consequence. In both cases there is a consequence. The difference is WHO decides the consequence.
Sexual exploitation of children is growing. Our society has made it clear over the last several years that any adult in a position of responsibility such as a teacher or police officer MUST NOT ignore any potential sexual exploitation. They arrest simply because society does not allow them any other recourse. They are not allowed to judge the merits of the case, only a court can do so. They risk their careers by failing to act.
That said, does our society go too far? Certainly. And why? Here the reasons are varied and there is no single cause. I submit one reason is very simple. Our society no longer trust parents. The role of a parent to judge the severity and apply consequences has increasingly been taken over by the government in the name of protecting children. This results in exactly what you see described. Government must act but individuals cannot make decisions on their own. So we end up with "zero tolerance" laws and condemnation of parents for giving their children "too much freedom".
I do not believe what happened is because we as a society are oppressive about sex. This is by far the most liberal society in my lifetime when it comes to sex. When we were far more conservative, we were not locking up kids for flashing themselves to other kids. I believe it is because we are allowing government to take over what used to be a parents job to decide and give consequences to such behavior.
LoneStarJeffe at February 2, 2010 5:55 AM
And then, on the other side of the spectrum, there are people like Dear Prudence who this week told a district tech person NOT to report (to the school board) a principal surfing porn with young looking girls in it on his work computer, because people shouldn't have their lives ruined for a lapse of judgement. If you're a teen, and it truly was just a lapse in judgement, yes. If you're someone hired to have good judgement, no.
momof4 at February 2, 2010 6:01 AM
Gretchen, the film is Hope and Glory (British) and a fabulous film it is. I'm in full fogey mode--why do 12 and 13 year olds need cell phones? If they truly do, get one without a camera and turn off the texting and web surfing functions. In the end, who is the parent?
Nanc in Ashalnd at February 2, 2010 7:04 AM
YES NANCY. That's it!! Thank you for resolving my brain fart.
Gretchen at February 2, 2010 7:12 AM
Nanc wrote: I'm in full fogey mode--why do 12 and 13 year olds need cell phones? If they truly do, get one without a camera and turn off the texting and web surfing functions. In the end, who is the parent?
I will put my rocking chair right next to yours then. I am in 100% agreement.
Sabrina at February 2, 2010 7:20 AM
Both my girls have cell phones. Cheap ones! Because yes, I'm cheap. They can talk on them and they can text on them. They just can't send pictures, or browse the 'Net. I told the girls when they can afford to get their own phones, they can get whatever they want. As long as I'm paying for them, they will get what I want them to have. Done. It's that or nothing. They've learned to be (relatively) happy with what they've got.
Flynne at February 2, 2010 7:39 AM
Good for you, Flynne. My whole life was pretty much based on that structure. Other "when you"s included: move out of this house you can live how you want, buy the groceries you can eat what you choose, buy your own clothes & wear what you choose, etc.
I've been living by my own decisions for decades now. I just wish society + government would stop trying to make me into a little kid again!
Pricklypear at February 2, 2010 10:02 AM
One of the 6 year old boys in our neighborhood has his own I-phone...
Eric at February 2, 2010 10:59 AM
And really, what ARE 12 and 13 year olds doing with phones? Camera phones at that? I will go one further than Flynne- If you live in my house and are under 18, I don't care if you use your own money or not. Things I find inappropriate won't be allowed. I don't even have a cell phone.
momof4 at February 2, 2010 11:06 AM
Has nobody noticed that the State is relentlessly extending and expanding its ability to control the lives of individuals? "Sex Offender" registries are just one more tool (along with parol and probation, anger management programs, domestic violence policies, etc.)
The evidence does not suggest that the REAL goal of these ever-more oppressive laws is to "protect" anyone. If that was the true objective, drunk guys who took a leak in an alley, or kids playing "I'll show you mine if you show me yours", wouldn't be indistinguishable from child rapists on the list of "sex offenders".
Jay R at February 2, 2010 11:20 AM
I don't have a cell phone either. Six years ago a co-worker told me I had to have one, I'd wonder how I ever lived without it! I told her I didn't need anything else that I'd wonder how I ever lived without.
There have been a few instances when it would have been handy to have one, but nothing that has compelled me to get one. I'm a borderline luddite, I know. If I had kids, they would feel "humiliated" on a daily basis.
Pricklypear at February 2, 2010 11:21 AM
If I had kids, they would feel "humiliated" on a daily basis.
Hell, you don't need to deprive them of cell phones for that - just ask my girls! lol!
Flynne at February 2, 2010 12:00 PM
Re the "Dear Prudence" column: Note that this is a high school, and the tech said the girls in the porn sites were "not much older" than the girls in the school. Which implies that they are older, which implies they are 18 or over.
Should the principle be surfing porn? Probably not. But it was after hours, so who really cares? The media hoopla would certainly destroy the man's life. The tech ought to just quietly see that the school's blacklist gets updated.
bradley13 at February 2, 2010 1:22 PM
I am a teacher, and I brought up the ridiculous charges that could stay with a child for life over sexting. The other teachers at the school unanimously thought that prosecution was a great idea. While a few kids would be hurt - too bad - at least it would put a stop to all the awful sexting. My mouth was agape. These are the people nurturing our babies.
jen at February 2, 2010 4:20 PM
Let me see if I have this straight.
If a kid commits second-degree murder at age 12 (and is not prosecuted as an adult), he'll have his record expunged when he turns 18 and be given a fresh start?
But if he flashes a classmate via cellphone, he'll be branded a pervert for life?
And we do it this way for his own protection?
Conan the Grammarian at February 2, 2010 4:55 PM
Guys, you know this is a manifestation of the Savanna theory Amy has presented. People favor prosecution because they do not know the offender, and they have no power, so they glory in asserting power over an anonymous and therefore barbarian person.
My neighbors are OK. Yours suck, and I don't have time to think about the plain fact that they do exactly the same things my neighbors do.
Too many people have the philosophy, "Screw those other people. I'll have what I want."
Radwaste at February 2, 2010 5:01 PM
" I will go one further than Flynne- If you live in my house and are under 18, I don't care if you use your own money or not. Things I find inappropriate won't be allowed. I don't even have a cell phone."
You might change your mind when your kids are of driving age. When I first started driving, I had to call and check in every time I arrived or left any place. On a typical weekday of my senior year of highschool, I'd call when I arrived at my afterschool internship, call when I left for the class I was taking at community college, call when I arrived at the college, call again when I left the college; and if wanted to go to the mall inbetween, that was another couple phone calls. Sure your kids COULD do that on a pay phone, but it's a huge pain in the ass for them and you.
I was talking to my older cousin (in her late 30s) and aunt about this recently, and my cousin said she had the same check-in system-on a CB radio! My aunt also recalled a lot of time spent waiting around in parking lots because she never knew exactly when her kids would be finished with activities.
If you have to ban modern conveniences from your house, why not the internet? After all, our grandparents lived pretty well without it! =)
Shannon at February 2, 2010 5:35 PM
It is overwhelminly religious folk who vote for these crap laws.
How ironic is it that the people who worship a god they belive is billions of years old and had sex with a teenager turn round and think its a good idea to label 16yr olds as sex offenders?
lujlp at February 3, 2010 9:10 AM
Somehow I doubt its all the god squad types supporting nonsense like this. There seems to be a lot of soccer mom types/helicopter parents that buy into the crisis du jour regarding kids.
Anyway, here is another mind bender, Hanna Montana's 9 year old sister set to sell kids lingerie:
http://celebrities.ninemsn.com.au/blog.aspx?blogentryid=585857&showcomments=true&rss=yes
Sio at February 3, 2010 1:44 PM
Poor little rich kid. She's not even that attractive in a cute kid sorta way. I guess she's got to do something to compete.
Flynne at February 3, 2010 2:44 PM
Thanks for the Information, thanks for this great Article. Also check these nice anal bitches Blog. Doppelanal Arschfick
Kylie Stahley at September 1, 2010 1:07 PM
Leave a comment