Charging Minors with Child Porn Options

[Comptine]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/

There have been a lot of cases of police arresting and charging teenagers/minors with possession and distribution of child pornography because they've been sending racy pictures through their phones. Authorities argue these measures are done to send a message. They are protecting kids from further harming themselves by risking their pictures getting put on the internet. So a 14 year old girl who sends her boyfriend a naked picture of herself could get arrested and charged for distributing child porn.

However, once charged, these kids have to register as a sex offender, in some places for as long as ten years. Which means, that 14 year old girl will find it a lot harder to apply for jobs and college all because she sent a photo of herself to her boyfriend and got lumped into the same category as a child molester.

Thoughts?

[*paperplane*]

What are you talking about, the pictures or the sex? Because if you're referring to sex...okay, but it varies by state. And in most, I'd assume though I can still only speak for my own, teenagers of similar age are not going to be required to register as sex offenders for committing sodomy. Because frankly it's stupid and unjust. Just because something is law doesn't make it right. Don't you smoke a lot of weed? Do you think marijuana laws are just and correct? Were segregation laws right? No. I think it is completely untrue that the law is that concrete; laws should be questioned. They may have been broken, but that doesn't necessarily mean that every offense should be prosecuted. It's inaccurate to think of the law as that concrete either; laws can be changed retroactively, such as in the case of the Romeo and Juliet clause I mentioned previously. People may have broken a law five years ago, but technically speaking they haven't broken the same law now.