Girl Charged With Child Porn

[J'Pol]

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.

[j2k4]

J'Pol-

It pains me greatly to say:

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

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by j2k4@22 April 2004 - 22:44
J'Pol-

It pains me greatly to say:

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

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's OK it was the girl herself, so we don't have to go any further". Thank feck Policemen don'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.

[leftism]

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.

[sArA]

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;

[Biggles]

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.

[Chevy]

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

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?


..

[J'Pol]

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.

[dwightfry]

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.

[MagicNakor]

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