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?

[brooklyneast05]

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?

who would honestly consider a baby stroller to be a vehicle? lol

[BamBamBoogie]

who would honestly consider a baby stroller to be a vehicle? lol

lol I was wondering the same thing but the deifinition of vehicle is: a means of carrying or transporting something - Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So technically, the woman would be breaking the law. But who would find her guilty? No logical thinking person would.

Again, it's for a jury to decide. They should still be prosecuted.

ummm... you're joking right?

[Uronacid]

So technically, the woman would be breaking the law. But who would find her guilty? No logical thinking person would.
ummm... you're joking right?

If no-one cares then they won't be prosecuted. If someone obnoxious cares then the jury will decide their fate. If no logically thinking person would find them guilty then the jury sure as hell wouldn't find her guilty unless by some chance they found themselves face to face with the jury from hell. Again, it's for a jury to decide, and law breakers should be prosecuted. This is why our justice system exists. You and your rhetorical questions... *sigh* You could really answer these for yourself.

[BamBamBoogie]

If no-one cares then they won't be prosecuted. If someone obnoxious cares then the jury will decide their fate. If no logically thinking person would find them guilty then the jury sure as hell wouldn't find her guilty unless by some chance they found themselves face to face with the jury from hell. Again, it's for a jury to decide, and law breakers should be prosecuted. This is why our justice system exists. You and your rhetorical questions... *sigh* You could really answer these for yourself.

ummm... it seems as though you're agreeing with me, but at the same time you're insulting me. Maybe it's just that you don't speak english well?

My whole point about the stroller is that the law is not in concrete. The judicial branch is there to interpret the law to figure out its intent. That's basically what you were saying, so I have no idea why your ideas seem to clash with mine.

[Uronacid]

ummm... it seems as though you're agreeing with me, but at the same time you're insulting me. Maybe it's just that you don't speak english well?

My whole point about the stroller is that the law is not in concrete. The judicial branch is there to interpret the law to figure out its intent. That's basically what you were saying, so I have no idea why your ideas seem to clash with mine.

I didn't understand what point you were trying to make when you referred to the mom and her stroller. Now that I do, we are in complete agreement.