Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYT: Rethinking Sex Offender Laws for Teenage Texting

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 02:22 PM
Original message
NYT: Rethinking Sex Offender Laws for Teenage Texting
This article, by Tamar Lewin of the NY Times, starts with a couple of anecdotes:

In Iowa, Jorge Canal is on the sex offenders registry because, at age 18, he was convicted of distributing obscene materials to a minor after he sent a picture of his penis by cellphone to a 14-year-old female friend who had requested it.

In Florida, Phillip Alpert, then 18, was charged with distributing child pornography and put on the sex offenders registry because after a fight, he sent a photograph of his nude 16-year old girlfriend by e-mail to dozens of people, including her parents.

In most states, teenagers who send or receive sexually explicit photographs by cellphone or computer — known as “sexting” — have risked felony child pornography charges and being listed on a sex offender registry for decades to come.


And now, lawmakers are starting to wake up and realize that they were overreacting:

But there is growing consensus among lawyers and legislators that the child pornography laws are too blunt an instrument to deal with an adolescent cyberculture in which all kinds of sexual pictures circulate on sites like MySpace and Facebook.

Last year, Nebraska, Utah and Vermont changed their laws to reduce penalties for teenagers who engage in such activities, and this year, according to the National Council on State Legislatures, 14 more states are considering legislation that would treat young people who engage in sexting differently from adult pornographers and sexual predators.

And on Wednesday, the first federal appellate opinion in a sexting case recognized that a prosecutor had gone too far in trying to enforce adult moral standards.


The opinion upheld a block on a district attorney who threatened to bring child pornography charges against girls whose pictures showing themselves scantily dressed appeared on classmates’ cellphones.


Two experts from different sides of the aisle weigh in.

Jesse Weins, chairman of the criminal justice department at Dakota Wesleyan University, said that because the legal code functioned as a guide to acceptable behavior, “there should be something there, even if oftentimes it doesn’t make sense to prosecute.”

But there are those who favor decriminalization.

“Generally this should be an education issue,” said Witold Walczak, legal director of the Pennsylvania American Civil Liberties Union. “No one disputes that sexting can have very bad consequences, and no parent wants kids sending out naked images. But if you’ve got thousands of kids engaging in this, are you going to criminalize all of them?


I also begin thinking about those who push for abstinence education despite the overwhelming evidence that it doesn't work.

It appears that Nebraska's trying some sort of "compromise":

There are two basic scenarios. In one, a teenager shares a nude picture, usually with a romantic partner. In the other, a partner, or more commonly an ex-partner, distributes the image.

The new Nebraska law makes that distinction, giving a pass to children under 18 who send out their own photograph to a willing recipient who is at least 15. On the other hand, a teenager who passes the photograph on to friends could face a felony child pornography charge and five years in prison.


Good for Nebraska. There are many stories of teen girls who've been victimized by fools who distribute their dirty laundry out in public. Some such girls have even committed suicide. Punishing only the distributors is the most practical path.

This article also alludes to the recent federal appeals court decision in Miller v. Mitchell that blocked teen sexting prosecutions in Pennsylvania; the ACLU represented the parents, who appealed on behalf of their children. Read the decision here and a summary here.

Oh, and regarding sex offender laws, I dislike laws that require convicted sex offenders to register with the state for life and not live in certain areas just because a school is nearby even post prison/parole. If the state can't trust them to be good after release, why not just keep 'em in the big house longer? Because registration in the database scars people for life and prevents them from getting most jobs, sex offender registration laws do little good for public safety and even risk recidivism. See also the case of one offender in California, John Albert Gardner III. After being charged in 2000 with molesting a teenage girl, Gardner was able to plea bargain 25 years off a possible 30 year sentence despite a psychiatrist's objections. He was on parole from 2005-2008; while in prison, he got in trouble for smoking but was a great teacher's assistant in the prison education program. Gardner is now accused of murdering 17-year-old Chelsea King this year and could face the death penalty if convicted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. That is where Jorge Canal, Phillip Alpert should be...They are adults...
Any man who sends nude pictures of his girl friend to people because he is angry at her isn't much of a man and, if she is 16, is distributing child pornography. And as for Jorge, he should have gone to jail.

The laws are there to protect people from predators, not to protect idiots from themselves. If you act like a predator, you are one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Did you actually READ the story of Jorge Canal?
Jorge's girlfriend REQUESTED the photo in the first place! And you say that "the laws are there to protect people from predators, not to protect idiots from themselves." Tell me what's so predatory about the Jorge Canal case, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Yes, "he sent a picture of his penis by cellphone to a 14-year-old female friend who had requested "
Edited on Sat Mar-20-10 07:21 PM by Ozymanithrax
Yes, and whether she requested it is irrelevant. He was 18 (adult) and she was (14) a minor. A 14 year old, by law, can not be involved in consensual sex with an adult, it is always statutory rape. Also, a 14 year old doesn't have the brains or the judgment to understand consequences. Jorge should have known better than to send images of his penis to the 14 year old girl. He should have had the brains to protect himself. Hell, he should have been chasing girls who had graduated from high schools instead of hanging out around junior high schools hoping to get some of that really young ass.

The laws are on the books because there are real predators out there. Many of them get on line and convince children to do do things. The truth about most of the perverts who pray on children is that they convince them to engage in acts. They don't force them. Water down the laws and you open new ways for adults to prey on children.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Well my apologies...
:hi:

I guess the NY Times author should have opened with Miller v. Mitchell instead of those two weak anecdotes. Still, I personally know someone who went to senior prom during her freshman year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 10th 2024, 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC