Girl Charged With Child Porn

In that case we will have to agree to disagree chalice.

My main point is that she is not a child pornographer or a child abuser so she shouldn't be treat like one.

No-one is saying that her age absolves her of responsibility. No one is saying that children should be given free reign.

The issue is whether the charges she is facing are appropriate. Imo, for the reasons I mentioned above, they are not.

edit:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chalice+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chalice)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What other option do the police have?[/b]

---

The police could have charged her with indecency/obscenity.

<!--QuoteBegin-chalice
She is clearly a child pornographer in the strict sense of the word[/quote]

She is not a child pornographer in the moral sense of the word.

Your record for "Sex Offences" and other serious offences are not "scrubbed".. thats an urban myth.

Once on the Sex Offenders list, you are there for life.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leftism+21 April 2004 - 21:16--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 21 April 2004 - 21:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> In that case we will have to agree to disagree chalice.

My main point is that she is not a child pornographer or a child abuser so she shouldn&#39;t be treat like one.

No-one is saying that her age absolves her of responsibility. No one is saying that children should be given free reign.

The issue is whether the charges she is facing are appropriate. Imo, for the reasons I mentioned above, they are not.

edit:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chalice@
What other option do the police have?

---

The police could have charged her with indecency/obscenity.

<!--QuoteBegin-chalice
She is clearly a child pornographer in the strict sense of the word

---

She is not a child pornographer in the moral sense of the word. [/b][/quote]
Sorry, Leftism, I added a rather late edit.

See my last for why I don&#39;t think this is a victimless crime.

If we have to agree to disagree then fair enough. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@21 April 2004 - 21:22
Your record for "Sex Offences" and other serious offences are not "scrubbed".. thats an urban myth.

Once on the Sex Offenders list, you are there for life.

---

My bad. This is an unfortunate side-effect but it can&#39;t be allowed to interfere with the process of law.

RF, does this apply to minors? I honestly don&#39;t know.

Im sure it does.

Its described as a "Scarlet Letter for Life"... The Judge may be able to order something though, maybe we should ask the American contingent?



However, remember this is the USA with the Plea Bargain system.

It may well be that those charges are dropped and a Guilty Plea to something equaly stupid is put in.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chalice+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chalice)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Sorry, Leftism, I added a rather late edit.[/b]

---

np :)

<!--QuoteBegin-chalice
See my last for why I don&#39;t think this is a victimless crime.[/quote]

I have to admit I found that a bit confusing. If she sent the images to one of her classmates, then she is sexually abusing them and if she sent the images to an adult of her own free will (i.e. no coercion) then that adult is sexually abusing her with her assistance?

If a 15 year old chick had sent me naughty photos of herself when I was a 15 year old kid in school I don&#39;t think I would have felt too traumatised&#33; :lol:

Seriously though.. calling this child abuse is almost insulting people who have suffered real abuse.

However, I fear we&#39;ll just have to disagree on this one :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leftism@21 April 2004 - 21:36
If she sent the images to one of her classmates, then she is sexually abusing them and if she sent the images to an adult of her own free will (i.e. no coercion) then that adult is sexually abusing her with her assistance?

If a 15 year old chick had sent me naughty photos of herself when I was a 15 year old kid in school I don&#39;t think I would have felt too traumatised&#33; :lol:

Seriously though.. calling this child abuse is almost insulting people who have suffered real abuse.

---

My point is that we aren&#39;t completely aware of the level of child abuse going on there.

Apparently she was distributing her photos to people she met on the net. Children of any age could have viewed it. It didn&#39;t necessarily have to be one of her classmates. An adult viewing any paedophilic image (with the occasional exception of the police and the legal system) is an abuse of children. No two ways about it.

Not to call it child abuse, imo, is certainly an insult to people who have been victim to it.

And if a fifteen year old girl had started sending me naked photos of her self when I was fifteen, after I fainted I&#39;d start thinking that maybe she needs her head looking at.
:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chalice

And if a fifteen year old girl had started sending me naked photos of her self when I was fifteen, after I fainted I&#39;d start thinking that maybe she needs her head looking at.
:lol:

---

My point exactly&#33; You wouldn&#39;t have been a victim of child abuse would you? :)

Imho calling this child abuse definitely trivialises an issue that is infinitely more serious than this specific incident.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leftism+21 April 2004 - 22:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 21 April 2004 - 22:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-chalice

And if a fifteen year old girl had started sending me naked photos of her self when I was fifteen, after I fainted I&#39;d start thinking that maybe she needs her head looking at.
:lol:

---

My point exactly&#33; You wouldn&#39;t have been a victim of child abuse would you? :)

Imho calling this child abuse definitely trivialises an issue that is infinitely more serious than this specific incident. [/b][/quote]
Thankfully not. But I do have great sympathy for those that suffer it.

It just seems to me that child abuse is on the increase. We owe a lot of it to the proliferation the net has permitted.

I believe no instance of this crime can be trivialized and I find it quite insulting that you think I&#39;m treating the matter lightly.

You&#39;ve hurt my feelings now, Leftism. I&#39;m off for a cry.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chalice@21 April 2004 - 15:34

What possesses a child to behave this way?

---

proof that you don&#39;t know many girls of 15, 16 or 17... i do, and i know for certain that more than one of them has done or still does this sort of thing from time to time

Quote:

---

as far as i&#39;m aware the age of majority is 18 in the uk...yes you can have sex at 16 but you can&#39;t see an X rated movie, you can&#39;t buy alcohol and you can&#39;t vote....and as far as i&#39;m aware you can&#39;t post pictures of yourself of a certain pornographic standard at any age in the UK without breaking obscenity laws

---

yes the age of majority is 18 but their still allowed to watch themselves... (i personally disagree with 18 b4 they can view x-rated films)

Quote:

---

Legally they cant watch it, as its porn, and you need to be 18 to watch porn

---

see above


oh and i agree 100% with jetje&#39;s post... every one of the million things he said :blink:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chalice+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chalice)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It just seems to me that child abuse is on the increase. We owe a lot of it to the proliferation the net has permitted.[/b]

---

Absolutely. But charging this girl with child abuse will not make any difference to that because its a completely separate issue. I think its safe to say that the majority of child porn isn&#39;t of this nature.

<!--QuoteBegin-chalice

I believe no instance of this crime can be trivialized and I find it quite insulting that you think I&#39;m treating the matter lightly.

You&#39;ve hurt my feelings now, Leftism. I&#39;m off for a cry.
[/quote]

Sorry about that dude :D, but saying this is a case of child abuse does trivialise the issue. This incident is not child abuse, it&#39;s far less serious than that. Most people in this thread seem to agree with that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by masta.z+21 April 2004 - 22:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (masta.z &#064; 21 April 2004 - 22:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-chalice@21 April 2004 - 15:34

What possesses a child to behave this way?

---

proof that you don&#39;t know many girls of 15, 16 or 17... i do, and i know for certain that more than one of them has done or still does this sort of thing from time to time [/b][/quote]
I knew plenty of 15 year old girls when I was 15. Have they changed much in 15 years?

Quote:

---

I knew plently of 15 year old girls when I was 15. Have they changed much in 15 years?

---

Probably not but access to the net was nowhere near as widespread as it is now.

When I was at school (10 years ago) a small proportion of the girls (10% ish) were sleeping with 18+ year old guys. Not a particularly pleasant thought :( but thats the reality of the situation.

I doubt it&#39;s improved much over the last decade.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chalice+21 April 2004 - 18:38--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chalice @ 21 April 2004 - 18:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by masta.z@21 April 2004 - 22:30
<!--QuoteBegin-chalice

---

Quote:

---

@21 April 2004 - 15:34

What possesses a child to behave this way?

---

proof that you don&#39;t know many girls of 15, 16 or 17... i do, and i know for certain that more than one of them has done or still does this sort of thing from time to time

---

I knew plenty of 15 year old girls when I was 15. Have they changed much in 15 years? [/b][/quote]
unless i only know the wrong ones then yeah they must have

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dwightfry@21 April 2004 - 12:12
Zero tolerance is bull shit&#33; Everything isn&#39;t black and white...there are gray areas. Zero tolerance ignores the original intent of the law. Fuck Zero Tolerance in ANY situation.

---

:beerchug: Hell yeah about time people agreed with me. :) Actually nothing is black and white to me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chalice
As for ruining her future, I &#39;m sad for her but its of her own doing (maybe).

---

So when are you legally accountable for your actions? 18? 16? 15?

Her actions seem to be less like a school teacher raping a student in the toilet block and more like a drunk walking around with no pants.

Public indecency would be a better option, so she does get a slap on the wrist and gets to grow up with out having PAEDOPHILE flash up on a computer screen every time she goes for a job.

Child abuse? Isn&#39;t that something that someone else does to you?

Child Pornography laws were not put in place with the intent to prosecute 15 yr old girls exploring there sexuality via 21st century tools.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dwightfry@22 April 2004 - 06:59
Child Pornography laws were not put in place with the intent to prosecute 15 yr old girls exploring there sexuality via 21st century tools.

---

Well-put, Renfield, and this is where the tailoring of the penalty to suit the offense can take place; as I said before, I believe there ought to be a punitive aspect, but, as has been mentioned here by others, her record ought to be completely expunged when she becomes an adult, provided she successfully completes whatever probation/penalty/treatment is prescribed by the authorities.

In other words, she need not be permanently stained nor stigmatized by this juvenile offense, and I believe the operant mechanisms are already in place, or at least they were not too long ago.

Hopefully that has not changed. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@21 April 2004 - 19:46


She just needs a clip around the ear by her parents and the PC taken off her.

---

I would tend to agree Rat Face.

If the length and breadth of this case is that she was "enjoying" others seeing her then it would seem more likely that if she has a kink then it is exhibitionism. This (I read somewhere :unsure: ) is a popular female fantasy. The fact that she was only 15 is, I suspect, coincidental. The attempt to somehow tar her otherwise says more about our moral panic on this topic than her sexuality.

It may be some of her "chums" on the net were heavily breathing 40 year old men and not "really cool" 16 year old boys. However, this is not her fault.

File under "Waste of time and resources" ......again :frusty:

If a 40 year old man said to her.

I will speak to you and treat you like an adult if you publish pictures of yourself on the internet.

You do not have to do this it is entirely up to you, there is no pressure your choice entirely. I will not post the photographs, it is you who will do it if you wish to and only then.

If she then went ahead and did it.

Which of them would be commiting an offence.

If a 14 year old b oy posts pictures of his 15 year old girlfriend, which one of them is committing an offence.

Or a 15 year old girl posting pictures of her friend.

J&#39;Pol-

It pains me greatly to say:

It would be up to the court(s) to decide. :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@22 April 2004 - 22:44
J&#39;Pol-

It pains me greatly to say:

It would be up to the court(s) to decide. :huh:

---

That my friend is the point.

The Police find images of a 15 year old girl on the interweb. They identify this as an offence. I would be seriously angered if they did not.

They investigate the situation, to try to establish who posted these images.

When they identify who posted the images they take the appropriate action. It is not for them to make judgment. Only to investigate and report, to the relevant body. They do not have the authority to say "oh it&#39;s OK it was the girl herself, so we don&#39;t have to go any further". Thank feck Policemen don&#39;t make that kind of decision. So they report the facts to the prosecuting body ....

It is a matter for the prosecutor to decide what action to take with regard to any prosecution. If they decide to proceed, then ...

It is a matter for the jury to decide on guilt or innocence. If they return a guilty verdict then ....

It is a matter for the Judge to decide on sentencing. The Judge will take into account a variety of factors. Including but not limited to, the age of the offender, their socio-economic background, the likely result of incarceration, their danger to society .... etc.

The Judge will then decide the most appropriate action to take.

People here seem to have decided that for the Police to charge is wrong. Regardless of the fact that they may have had no option to do so. They seem also to have decided that The Police charging someone with an offence is the end of proceedings. Rather than the beginning.

For me - every time the Police find Lewd images of a child on the interweb they should investigate it. Vigilantes presuming innocence is no different from vigilantes presuming guilt.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>t is a matter for the Judge to decide on sentencing. The Judge will take into account a variety of factors. Including but not limited to, the age of the offender, their socio-economic background, the likely result of incarceration, their danger to society .... etc.[/b]

---

Due to minimum sentencing requirements the judge will not have a free hand. Considering the seriousness of the charges there is no way this girl will receive a fitting punishment for her crime.

<!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol
People here seem to have decided that for the Police to charge is wrong.[/quote]

No they have not. For the vast majority of people who have posted in this thread the issue isn&#39;t whether she should be charged, it&#39;s what she should be charged with.

Due to the fact that this girl is obviously not a paedophile or a child pornographer most people feel a lesser charge such as indecency or obscenity would be more appropriate.

I genuinely don&#39;t understand why anyone would find this viewpoint unreasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leftism@22 April 2004 - 23:23
the issue isn&#39;t whether she should be charged, it&#39;s what she should be charged with.

Due to the fact that this girl is obviously not a paedophile or a child pornographer most people feel a lesser charge such as indecency or obscenity would be more appropriate.

I genuinely don&#39;t understand why anyone would find this viewpoint unreasonable.

---

With you here lefty,


Oh and just wanna mention that being unreasonable on this forum is, I feel, one method by which debate is stimulated. ;)

Don&#39;t you just love it?

It&#39;s why I come back...

again...and
again...and
again...and
again...and
again...



























and again&#33; :D :D :lol: :lol: :D :D

J&#39;Pol

I agree with your view of due process.

I think in practice though the Police do exercise a little discretion, although in this instance they may have felt the stakes were too high.

I have no idea whether the decision to prosecute has been taken (come to think of it, I have no idea where this occured - in some countries she may already be facing dire consequences). Assuming it was the UK, a decision would be taken as to whether a prosecution is in the public interest. I think the gist of most peoples&#39; views is that a formal prosecution in this case is not the way ahead. However, it was right that the matter was investigated (she could have been in the clutches of some porn baron or subject to some ghastly abuse).

The idea that she will be charged with child abuse of herself is perhaps more the invention of the press that released the story than any intention a public prosecutor may have. That would be akin to being charged with stealing ones own car (when driving it dangerously was in fact the appropriate charge).

Blurring the lines of what is and is not child abuse serves no one other than those who would like to see such definitions blurred. As I noted, and I believe Leftism and Sara suggested, indecent behaviour and exhibitionism are her crimes not molestation of the young. To charge her with a crime one associates with Myra Hindley rather than the activities of say Jordan or a dozen other exhibitionist role models seems cruel and bizarre. The destruction of a life before it has begun. (This, as I said before, is on the basis that what we have seen is the full extent of the case as it stands)

However, in the interests of unanimity and justice - I raise Rat Face&#39;s original sentence to a clip round both ears, no pc till she&#39;s 18 and doing the dishes for 3 years.

Noticed a few "ifs" in this thead so here&#39;s another report:

Quote:

---

A 15 year-old American girl has been charged with child pornography offences after posting pictures of herself online.

The unnamed teenager is accused of sending photos of herself "in various states of undress and performing a variety of sexual acts" to people she met in online chat rooms, AP reports. Police found dozens of inappropriate photos when they seized the girl&#39;s PC.

The teenager has been charged with the possession and distribution of child pornography as well as the sexual abuse of children. ®

---

source

I agree with what J&#39;Pol said in that any issue related to child pornography should go through the processes regardless. The worry is minimum sentancing and flexability for certain charges are made once it hits the courts (as morally I agree, it is indecency in actuality rather than abuse). As it&#39;s a US thing, anyone know how the system would deal with it over there?


..

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leftism@23 April 2004 - 00:23

Due to the fact that this girl is obviously not a paedophile or a child pornographer

---

She is alleged to have posted images of a minor performing various sexual acts on the internet.

On what basis are you judging that she is not a child pornographer.

My point remains that it is for the judge and jury to decide on what she is. That should be based on the law and the evidence presented.

It should not be for individuals to decide, based on their reading of reports and their "common sense" perception of what is right and what is wrong.

Quote:

---

On what basis are you judging that she is not a child pornographer

---

On the EXACT same basis that if she were to have sex with her boyfriend (of the same age), he wouldn&#39;t be charged with sexual misconduct with a minor.

But if she were having sex with her 40 year-old "boyfriend," he&#39;d be charged with statuatory rape. amoung other things.

:ninja:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MagicNakor@23 April 2004 - 07:34
But if she were having sex with her 40 year-old "boyfriend," he&#39;d be charged with statuatory rape. amoung other things.

:ninja:

---

And he should. He&#39;s 40. If she sent picture of herself to adults then, they should be prosicuted.

Children &#39;experimenting&#39; with other children is completely natural. But children &#39;experimenting&#39; with adults is wrong, on the adults part. Children don&#39;t know any better. The fact that she did this over the internet is dangerous, but not surprising.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc+20 April 2004 - 23:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 20 April 2004 - 23:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Keikan@20 April 2004 - 20:05
Ya but what are you worried about him accessing? Porn? He&#39;s 16 come on.

---

Hmm...are you a parent?

So what exactly is this thread about?...a girl of 15 posting pornographic pictures of herself on the net.....do you think this would happen if her parents did as i do?
I have kept a check on him always, i like to think i am a good parent. I don&#39;t particularly want him to look at porn, but it&#39;s only natural for a young man to be curious, he knows all about sex and has a healthy like of girls...he also has a healthy respect of them because i tried to raise him to be a gentleman and respectful. When he is an adult and has his own place he can do whatever he wants..until then he abides by my rules. I am not a tyrant, i do negotiate on most things and treat him with the same respect i like him to give me, but sometimes being a good parent is not about being too easy going. [/b][/quote]
Well I&#39;m just saying, He&#39;s 16 so I assume he should already know about sex and stuff. So I don&#39;t see anything wrong with porn, aslong as he know it&#39;s only pure entertainment of course. But other than porn I can&#39;t think of anything else that bad on the internet. Or maybe your worried about who he is chatting with? Chatting with some bad people?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Keikan@24 April 2004 - 08:49
But other than porn I can&#39;t think of anything else that bad on the internet.

---

There are many things which are bad on the interweb, just as there are in real life. Indeed on the interweb it can be worse, as you cannot see the person you are chatting to, or who made the site you are looking at.

Think of anything you will find in real life and it is on the net, it gives a voice to those who could be ignored. There are sites about Racial Hatred, Sectarianism, Terrorism, just about everything you could think of.

Bear in mind that some sites like this are easy to spot, because the owner wants it to be obvious what they are about. There are others which look perfectly reasonable. However when one looks at some of the individual parts, we see that they are anything but. Their filth is hidden amongst normal and reasonable material, which is in effect little more than camouflage.

The reader goes thro&#39; the stuff presented and is accepting it, when their little nuggets appear it is much easier just to accept those as well. Particularly if it is well done.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@24 April 2004 - 00:55
There are many things which are bad on the interweb, just as there are in real life. Indeed on the interweb it can be worse, as you cannot see the person you are chatting to, or who made the site you are looking at.

Think of anything you will find in real life and it is on the net, it gives a voice to those who could be ignored. There are sites about Racial Hatred, Sectarianism, Terrorism, just about everything you could think of.

Bear in mind that some sites like this are easy to spot, because the owner wants it to be obvious what they are about. There are others which look perfectly reasonable. However when one looks at some of the individual parts, we see that they are anything but. Their filth is hidden amongst normal and reasonable material, which is in effect little more than camouflage.

The reader goes thro&#39; the stuff presented and is accepting it, when their little nuggets appear it is much easier just to accept those as well. Particularly if it is well done.

---

on this we agree 100% (bet you never thought that would happen)

Keikan
Jpol pretty much made the point (darn that&#39;s annoying :lol: )
the rules i set were agreed on by us both as a condition that he could have his own computer in his room a few years ago....he has had 2 computers since then :huh: and i gave him acccess to the broadband which he uses to the full with online gaming and his X.box. I do cut a lot of slack, i know he looks at pictures of naked women, FHM type picture are his favourites, but he knows he would be in trouble for looking at hardcore porn.
He is a typical teenager, he seems to have lost the use of his arms and doesn&#39;t seem to know why he did things, however his grades are excelent and he knows he has to keep them up to enjoy certain priviledges.
i appreciate what you are saying, i believe you are about the same age ?. But my point is that as a parent we have to know that our children are not up to mischief such as the case of the girl in the original thread.

ok.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc+24 April 2004 - 16:43--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 24 April 2004 - 16:43)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@24 April 2004 - 00:55
There are many things which are bad on the interweb, just as there are in real life. Indeed on the interweb it can be worse, as you cannot see the person you are chatting to, or who made the site you are looking at.

Think of anything you will find in real life and it is on the net, it gives a voice to those who could be ignored. There are sites about Racial Hatred, Sectarianism, Terrorism, just about everything you could think of.

Bear in mind that some sites like this are easy to spot, because the owner wants it to be obvious what they are about. There are others which look perfectly reasonable. However when one looks at some of the individual parts, we see that they are anything but. Their filth is hidden amongst normal and reasonable material, which is in effect little more than camouflage.

The reader goes thro&#39; the stuff presented and is accepting it, when their little nuggets appear it is much easier just to accept those as well. Particularly if it is well done.

---

on this we agree 100% (bet you never thought that would happen)

Keikan
Jpol pretty much made the point (darn that&#39;s annoying :lol: )
the rules i set were agreed on by us both as a condition that he could have his own computer in his room a few years ago....he has had 2 computers since then :huh: and i gave him acccess to the broadband which he uses to the full with online gaming and his X.box. I do cut a lot of slack, i know he looks at pictures of naked women, FHM type picture are his favourites, but he knows he would be in trouble for looking at hardcore porn.
He is a typical teenager, he seems to have lost the use of his arms and doesn&#39;t seem to know why he did things, however his grades are excelent and he knows he has to keep them up to enjoy certain priviledges.
i appreciate what you are saying, i believe you are about the same age ?. But my point is that as a parent we have to know that our children are not up to mischief such as the case of the girl in the original thread. [/b][/quote]
I agree,

I also feel that it is the lack of parental guidance which created this situation, and they should be considered responsible.

Perhaps they could be charged with &#39;incitement to child pornography&#39;, &#39;neglect&#39; and &#39;child abuse&#39;. :angry: :angry:

Sara

Sorry, I am not totally aware of the whole story or background. Could you perhaps enlighten me as to why we are now blaming the parents for this.

There are plenty of people who are raised in a less than satisfactory environment, who become good, worthwhile members of society. On the other hand there are those who are raised in a loving, caring environment who turn out to be delinquents or criminals. There are a great many factors other than parental control.

I am not saying that the parents are not the cause in this case, just that I have not seen the evidence to support this contention. I would be particularly interested in the evidence to support the allegation of incitement,

I would agree with J&#39;Pol on this. Part of allowing one&#39;s children to grow up is to give them responsibility. It simply is not possible to monitor their behaviour 100% of the time. In fact, I suspect a teenager who was monitored 100% of the time might feel a little "controlled" and not at all happy.

Whilst not all 15 year olds experiment with smoking, drinking and sex a fair few do. It is also true that some parents worry less than others (which might explain the gang of drunken teenagers I saw staggering around town the other night). However, to suggest that parents should be charged with incitement because a) they bought her a computer and B) were content that she was not roaming the streets drunk so allowed her private time in her own room, is a bit harsh I feel.

Like J&#39;Pol I don&#39;t know the background to this, so if there is evidence that she was encouraged to do this then the matter takes a different complexion. However, the idea that every parent should make regular 15 minute checks on their teenagers in their rooms is a novel one (and a contentious one too I suspect).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@25 April 2004 - 12:21
I would agree with J&#39;Pol on this. Part of allowing one&#39;s children to grow up is to give them responsibility. It simply is not possible to monitor their behaviour 100% of the time. In fact, I suspect a teenager who was monitored 100% of the time might feel a little "controlled" and not at all happy.

Whilst not all 15 year olds experiment with smoking, drinking and sex a fair few do. It is also true that some parents worry less than others (which might explain the gang of drunken teenagers I saw staggering around town the other night). However, to suggest that parents should be charged with incitement because a) they bought her a computer and B) were content that she was not roaming the streets drunk so allowed her private time in her own room, is a bit harsh I feel.

Like J&#39;Pol I don&#39;t know the background to this, so if there is evidence that she was encouraged to do this then the matter takes a different complexion. However, the idea that every parent should make regular 15 minute checks on their teenagers in their rooms is a novel one (and a contentious one too I suspect).

---

I can only support the following by anecdotal evidence, however in my experience adolescents who are over-controlled often have serious problems. Particularly with regulating their own behaviour.

A friend of mine has a teenage daughter. She and her other 16 year old friends were having a sleep-over. Jim has no problem with her having a couple of drinks (in the house) of a Friday night. It is in a controlled environment and takes away the great mystique. He was happy for the other girls to do the same, however only with their parents approval (directly to him or his good lady obviously). One set of parents refused and thought the idea a bad one. Jim gave them his word that their daughter would not get alcohol in his house, he ensured this was complied with.

Said non-drinking daughter is the only one who has been seen under the influence (and quite badly) walking the local streets. Short of locking them indoors or following them everywhere children, or young adults will tend to experiment. If they have a knowledge of the effects of alcohol and in particular it&#39;s delayed action effects, then they are better equipped to deal with situations. One can see how, if they do not have the experience, they will drink too much, too quickly. This goes for other things as well.

The point is that parents are only one of many influences on their children. When they are younger then the parent is the main influence. However as they get older the influences and how important they are change. A 16 year old is likely to be more influenced by peer pressure than by their parents. The important thing is how they were influenced when younger and the basic values they have. If they have the ability to regulate their own behaviour, which they were given gradually as they grew up, then they are well equipped to cope with situations.

Good posts, guys (and Sara, too); I feel I must reiterate and stress what J&#39;Pol mentioned in passing-the demystification of select experiences and/or
substances can be a powerful tool in the hands of a responsible adult.

It doesn&#39;t get the play it should in the unofficial and unprinted Handbook of Parenting. ;)