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?

[karmakiller]

^ Well, parents shouldn't get off completely free of anything. If their children do something that's against the law the parents are responsible too, because of negligence. I don't see how that wouldn't apply to this situation. And I agree with JC, if someone sending nudes to her boyfriend was considered breaking news I would never watch the news. That's more ridiculous than some of the stuff they report anyways.


I think I could understand someone under 18 being charged with something if his/her intent was to post the photo on the web or to send it to an adult. But even then, it should be the adult getting charged, not the child. Just because sending nudes to someone is in poor taste, doesn't mean it should require a child to register as a sex offender for 10 years. Children are naive, and I think that's a bit harsh. I'm not saying they should just let it go, though.

[SuckDickNSaveLiv...]

^ Well, parents shouldn't get off completely free of anything. If their children do something that's against the law the parents are responsible too, because of negligence.

That's not right. Kids hide stuff from their parents all the time. Do you honestly think that a parent can monitor everything their kid does? That's impossible. You could try keeping your kids from having sex by having them not go out, but that wont work because they'll just find some place at school to do it. So should the parents be held responsible for teenage pregnancy too or all the other mischievous stuff teenagers do?

[karmakiller]

That's not right. Kids hide stuff from their parents all the time. Do you honestly think that a parent can monitor everything their kid does? That's impossible. You could try keeping your kids from having sex by having them not go out, but that wont work because they'll just find some place at school to do it. So should the parents be held responsible for teenage pregnancy too or all the other mischievous stuff teenagers do?

I know what you're saying, but there isn't a law against teenagers having sex. I was referring to things that are against the law and end up with lawsuit that the parents have to pay. If they make it against the law for someone underage to post a nude photo of themselves on the internet (not just sending it to someone) then somehow they'd have to find a way to prove that the parents were being negligent... and doing that is going to waste a lot of time and a lot of money. I think they should focus more on the perverts who are into kiddy porn and are looking at leaked images of underage kids than kids sending photos to each other.

If someone who is underage is sending nudes to someone else who underage I think that's different than someone who's underage sending nudes to someone who is their 40's. That shouldn't be treated equally.

[SuckDickNSaveLiv...]

I know what you're saying, but there isn't a law against teenagers having sex. I was referring to things that are against the law and end up with lawsuit that the parents have to pay. If they make it against the law for someone underage to post a nude photo of themselves on the internet (not just sending it to someone) then somehow they'd have to find a way to prove that the parents were being negligent... and doing that is going to waste a lot of time and a lot of money. I think they should focus more on the perverts who are into kiddy porn and are looking at leaked images of underage kids than kids sending photos to each other.

If someone who is underage is sending nudes to someone else who underage I think that's different than someone who's underage sending nudes to someone who is their 40's. That shouldn't be treated equally.

You bring up a good point of how bogus this whole law is though. It's not illegal for two teenagers to engage in sex, however it's illegal for them to send pics to one another. With or without the pics they've already seen each other naked, so why is it a crime for a minor to have naked pics of another minor but not two minors having sex? Which one is potentially more dangerous? A minor with a nude picture of another minor or a minor having sex with another minor, potentially contracting a permanent std or conceiving a child. I think whoever came up with this law didn't really think things through or they probably have terrible logic.

I get what you're saying about the parents being punished for negligence if their kid commits a crime, but I still can't agree with that. You could place the blame on the parents for bad parenting perhaps, but charging them with a crime is beyond me.