Charging Minors with Child Porn |
Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.
Charging Minors with Child Porn |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
![]() Sing to Me ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Member Posts: 1,825 Joined: Apr 2004 Member No: 10,808 ![]() |
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? |
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Member Posts: 164 Joined: Dec 2006 Member No: 484,926 ![]() |
This forum is quite chaotic, I must say.
I don't think that pressing charges against a minor, who most likely doesn't even know exactly what childpornography is, will solve any problems. That is why there is a juvenile system because minors are not and should not be expected to govern themselves as adults nor be treated like them. WHy? Because they are children. Now I agree that the kids should be informed on why it is wrong and possibly have some priveledges revoked or something like that, but pressing charges is way too extreme. If they are charged then I guess we would have to arrest all the gerber/pampers babies who show their asses in commercials on t.v. right? Also, the law is not at all concrete. That is why the Supreme Court exists so that they can declare laws unconstitutional and make them void. The judiciary system has the job of interpreting the law so that the letter of the law is not confused with the intent. For example, a sign may say no vehicles are allowed in a park or you will risk being severely punished. If a mother decides to take a walk with her beautiful baby girl and put her in a stroller, she would be violating the law because a stroller is a vehicle. According to letter of laaw she should be punished, but the court will interpret the actual intent of the law and determine that it was not designed to keep mothers with strollers out of a park. Get it? |
|
|
![]() ![]() |