# Teen Sexting, Grounds For Expulsion?



## MA-Caver (Jun 27, 2011)

Reading the article I'd have to agree with this parent's concern about how one state decided to pass a bill which makes teen sexting illegal and thus giving schools grounds for expulsion. 


> *Should Sexting Be Grounds For Expulsion?  This Parent Says No way!*
> 
> Posted by monica bielanko  on June 2nd, 2011 at 8:22 am
> 
> ...



Agreed that it is getting to be a bit too Big Brother-ish and that it IS none of the senate or anyone else's business except the parent of the teen who sexts. 
How far will this go? 
My (ex) gf still sends me some *ahem* risque pics now and again (mebbe I shouldn't call her my ex??) and I'll be damned if I'm going to go to jail or have her go to jail because she's a consenting adult and I'm a consenting adult well over legal age and it's just our business what we want to do with/for/to each other. 

If the kids have actual physical contact on school property it should be grounds for suspension (because getting caught is embarrassing enough okay... for a teen), but not expelled. Kids are going to be kids and they're going to do what kids do. Learn about their world and what makes them curious. It's up to the PARENTS to decide how/when/why the kids do so and if it's against the PARENTS' values then the PARENTS need to take care of it not the state or anyone else. 

Thoughts? On Sexting being grounds for expulsion from school.


----------



## granfire (Jun 27, 2011)

a just say no proposition?

we all know how well those work...

Not to mention the opportunities to cause trouble for a person...

I think education (oh right... that's what schools ought to do!) is much more successful than some haphazardly drawn law...

frankly, it's a case of nonya...for the state. what happens on a cell phone is really not subject to what the state needs to know....

(that those dumb kids need some sense slapped into them for being stupid is another question..)


----------



## David43515 (Jun 27, 2011)

granfire said:


> ....those dumb kids need some sense slapped into them.....


 

There`s an app for that.


----------



## granfire (Jun 27, 2011)

David43515 said:


> There`s an app for that.



LOL

I thought it was called 'big wooden spoon' and resides in the kitchen....


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 28, 2011)

Texting was just a new thing when I was in high school, so sexting really hadn't come up..

but this really comes down to the Government minding there own business.

Although it is state side only right now, which I respect, and I am sure it will get over turned soon...At least for public schools, or Universities that recieve government grants.  Private schools, I guess, just don't get caught. lol


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 28, 2011)

I think that states need different laws for sexting vs. child pornography, but not grounds for expulsion.  Many states ARE passing laws for a person under the age of consent taking a picture of themself and sending it out to another party.  I know in Michigan currently, it falls under child pornography and has VERY stiff penalties for taking the picture and sending it out, which then falls into distribution of child porn.

Back to the topic, why expulsion for this?  Expulsion is usually reserved for the removal of a student from ALL public schools for a period of time (180 days, so about one school year) for the protection of the student body.  Usually, it is for a violent offense or a weapons offense or selling drugs on school property.  Where is the danger to the rest of the student body (pardon the pun).


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 28, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> Where is the danger to the rest of the student body (pardon the pun).


 

It most likely comes from when a girl send a picture to a boy...they break up, and then he sends it to the entire school.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 28, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> It most likely comes from when a girl send a picture to a boy...they break up, and then he sends it to the entire school.


 

You still can't legislate stupid.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 28, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> You still can't legislate stupid.


 

Thats for sure. But of course your going to get angry parents that don't know how to actually be parents that let things get so out of hand that they're children are contimplating suicide or worse, attempt/successfully commit suicide.

yes its sad that someone can be driven to do such a thing...but really it comes down to parental neglect.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 28, 2011)

First of all, let's think about the term _'child pornography'._  It wasn't defined with the idea of a child performing the photography, but being the subject of it. Unlike adult pornography, which is rather vaguely-defined and varies from location to location based on community standards, child pornography was age-defined.  If the photograph included nudity in any form and the subject was under the legal age of consent, it was child pornography, plain and simple.  _EDIT: There are a few 'art' exceptions, including photographers like Jock Sturges.  This is quite unusual, however._

And it is a serious crime, is it not? A crime to possess, a crime to distribute, a crime to sell, and yes, a crime to produce.  And until the concept of children creating it themselves came along with cell phones, one would tend to say rightfully so.  Adults today caught with child pornography in their possession face lengthy prison terms and a lifetime of being on a sex-offender registry in most places.  In some places in the USA, offenders, once released, can literally not live in any residence in their city and are forced by law to remain homeless for the remainder of their lives.  That's how seriously we take child pornography.

When these laws were created, they did not comprehend the concept of a child being either the subject or the recipient of such photographs or videos.  So the law in most cases does not differentiate.  A person who makes child pornography is a felon, even if they are the photographer and the subject.  A person who possesses it is a felon, even if they are themselves a child.

While I believe that we should consider revamping these laws to take the age of the creator as well as the recipient into account, I am not sure that it is wrong to continue to ban such photographs and videos, nor even to punish the offenders; but perhaps not to the extent that we punish adults.

Consider the child that takes a pornographic image of themselves and sends it via text message to someone else - and by mistake sends to an adult.  That adult could fairly easily be arrested, prosecuted, and unless they could convince a jury that they never intended to be in possession of that image, sent to prison for a very long time.  Legal for the photographer to make the image - because they themselves are a child - but a felony for an adult to possess?  That's like saying it's OK for kids to make crack cocaine, but not legal for an adult to possess it.

Images from 'sexting' leak out into the community.  They often cause great suffering amongst families when they inevitably make their way back to the family of the child who made the images.  If I recall correctly, some children have committed suicide after their pornographic self-image was circulated widely and they were subjected to ridicule, humiliation, and abuse.  Is it correct to say that this is something that the community should have no say in?  That it's none of our business that this is going on?

One can also say that this _'sexting' _is a form of manipulative and exploitive behavior, primarily of girls by boys.  Such things have always existed of course, but not what was once a pressure to have sex or perform sex acts which could lead to pregnancy or loss of face in the community is now something that could literally follow a woman around for the rest of her life, since the Internet is forever, in addition to pregnancy, disease, and being ostracized.   Is this what we want?  To create an atmosphere where boys can pressure girls to take explicit sexual photographs and videos of themselves and be completely shielded from all potential detection or punishment?  We want to create a zone of tolerance where something that could be worse than rape is accepted and the community is told it is none of their business?  

One can say that parents should be responsible for their own children - and I agree - but if Johnny came over to Suzy's house and coerced Suzy into having sex, we would not blame Suzy's parents, nor would we shrug it off as not being society's business, would we?  So not everything sexual that happens between children can be stopped by even the best parents.

I think pretty much everyone agrees that child pornography is a Bad Thing.  When it is between children, it may seem innocent and less of a crime, but consider that it seldom remains between children, or even between the two children originally involved.  The fact that adults get involved means that often the images and videos make it 'out' of the community of children, thus proving the point that it happens.  So we want to create a source of child pornography that not only cannot be prosecuted as a crime, but cannot even be investigated, like a stream of crack cocaine into our communities that we have to put up with because it is kids producing it?

I'm not trying to be a prude or speak from some moral high ground here.  But as long as we live in a world that recognizes that sexual images and videos of children is a bad thing for adults to create, distribute, and possess, we cannot ignore that the creation and distribution might be from those children themselves.  Despite the fact that they never intended them to be seen by adult eyes, eventually they will.  If this is a crime for adults to create, distribute, and possess, then it cannot be a shielded portal free from government intervention when children do it.  Do the laws need to be revised to comprehend what no one contemplated when the laws on underage sexual images were written?  Yes.  But is it an area of legitimate government intervention?  Also yes.

There is no second internet, a place where children are separate from adults.  Anything that makes it out onto the 'net is eventually going to be seen by eyes that the originator would probably not want to see it.  Since we cannot stop this from happening, we as a society must take an interest in stopping it to the extent that we are capable in this case.  That is my opinion.  

As to the original question, is it right for a school to expel a student for sexting?  Yes.  The images are passed around to the child's social group, which is the school's students.  Educational processes are disrupted.  This is the business of the school.  It's not about the sexting in that context; it's about the right of the school to attempt to control the learning environment without disruption from external sources.  Like expelling a kid for fighting, stealing, or pulling fire alarms.  It disrupts.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 28, 2011)

If a minor is busted for sending pictures of themselves to his or her friends, they are subject to several things.

1.) Expulsion/Suspension
    Disciplinary action from the school

2.) (Most Likely) Punishment from Parent

3.) Social Blowback from friends at the school

4.) *Branded a Sexual Predator and will have to register for life on the Sex Offenders list.*

That number 4 there..I HIGHLY disagree with.  Minors are minors. They do silly things when they are young, and they get exponged(at least supposed to) when they are 18.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 28, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> 4.) *Branded a Sexual Predator and will have to register for life on the Sex Offenders list.*
> 
> That number 4 there..I HIGHLY disagree with.  Minors are minors. They do silly things when they are young, and they get exponged(at least supposed to) when they are 18.



I agree, but when many of the laws were created, this concept was not comprehended, because nothing like this existed.  So yes, the laws should be updated to reflect this new technology and trend.


----------



## Carol (Jun 28, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> Back to the topic, why expulsion for this?  Expulsion is usually reserved for the removal of a student from ALL public schools for a period of time (180 days, so about one school year) for the protection of the student body.  Usually, it is for a violent offense or a weapons offense or selling drugs on school property.  Where is the danger to the rest of the student body (pardon the pun).



This is also on school property and the pictures passed may not be of the sender.

If I am reading the story correctly, explusion wouldn't be from sexting pix outside school.

In the real world, send nekkid pix (of oneself or others) on company time, and one will likely find themselves "expelled" from their job.


----------



## granfire (Jun 28, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> First of all, let's think about the term _'child pornography'._  It wasn't defined with the idea of a child performing the photography, but being the subject of it. Unlike adult pornography, which is rather vaguely-defined and varies from location to location based on community standards, child pornography was age-defined.  If the photograph included nudity in any form and the subject was under the legal age of consent, it was child pornography, plain and simple.  _EDIT: There are a few 'art' exceptions, including photographers like Jock Sturges.  This is quite unusual, however._
> 
> And it is a serious crime, is it not? A crime to possess, a crime to distribute, a crime to sell, and yes, a crime to produce.  And until the concept of children creating it themselves came along with cell phones, one would tend to say rightfully so.  Adults today caught with child pornography in their possession face lengthy prison terms and a lifetime of being on a sex-offender registry in most places.  In some places in the USA, offenders, once released, can literally not live in any residence in their city and are forced by law to remain homeless for the remainder of their lives.  That's how seriously we take child pornography.
> 
> ...




Well, from what I gather, it seems that child pornography laws need to be revamped from the ground up, re classify the bad act and putting some sort of reason back into the laws (like the intend of arousal or some sort of malicious intend) to protect the innocent.
(shucks, considering the outlines you gave, you can kill a teacher's carrier by sending them nudes to the cellphone...)

It shows greatly how absolute verbage in the law really does not help the matter when it gives no wiggle room for circumstance.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 28, 2011)

granfire said:


> Well, from what I gather, it seems that child pornography laws need to be revamped from the ground up, re classify the bad act and putting some sort of reason back into the laws (like the intend of arousal or some sort of malicious intend) to protect the innocent.
> (shucks, considering the outlines you gave, you can kill a teacher's carrier by sending them nudes to the cellphone...)
> 
> It shows greatly how absolute verbage in the law really does not help the matter when it gives no wiggle room for circumstance.


Well there we go again... intent. 
A pornographer takes/distributes those photos with the intent of arousal and profit. 
A teenager takes and distributes their photo with the intent of arousal of someone they're interested in or to prove a stupid point (whatever it may be for teenagers these days). As the article says it may be their way of flirting. Certainly not us OLDER people (you know who you are) way of flirting but who is to say. Ask a teenager why they would take a picture of their naughty bits (whole or in part) and you'd be lucky to get a straight honest answer. 
But I do see the possibility of the images being hacked and re-distributed for the intent of arousal and profit. Yet they're (the teens) are going to keep on doing it because 1. they want to... 2. it's another way of defying authority (almost a teen prerequisite thing to do), 3. have the same feelings that it's nobody else's business what they do. 4. Nobody in their family cares what they do (and sadly that is too true in cases scattered across the country and the world). 

I do agree that the laws need to be re-written to be now more specific in the regards to child pornography and teen sexting.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 28, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> Well there we go again... intent.


 
Whats the problem with a 17 year old, looking at another 17 year old..when the two are consenting?

They could do it over text...they can do it online..or..

they can do it in real life, and be other life consequences that come up, that are far bigger than either are ready to handle.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 28, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> Whats the problem with a 17 year old, looking at another 17 year old..when the two are consenting?
> 
> They could do it over text...they can do it online..or..
> 
> they can do it in real life, and be other life consequences that come up, that are far bigger than either are ready to handle.


I personally don't have a problem with it because they're going to do it anyway with or without my permission/approval.


----------



## granfire (Jun 28, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> Well there we go again... intent.
> A pornographer takes/distributes those photos with the intent of arousal and profit.
> A teenager takes and distributes their photo with the intent of arousal of someone they're interested in or to prove a stupid point (whatever it may be for teenagers these days). As the article says it may be their way of flirting. Certainly not us OLDER people (you know who you are) way of flirting but who is to say. Ask a teenager why they would take a picture of their naughty bits (whole or in part) and you'd be lucky to get a straight honest answer.
> But I do see the possibility of the images being hacked and re-distributed for the intent of arousal and profit. Yet they're (the teens) are going to keep on doing it because 1. they want to... 2. it's another way of defying authority (almost a teen prerequisite thing to do), 3. have the same feelings that it's nobody else's business what they do. 4. Nobody in their family cares what they do (and sadly that is too true in cases scattered across the country and the world).
> ...




Intend, aye...
making it criminal to have a picture of a toddler playing sans trunks in a kiddy pool...
(had a few discussions with my kid when he was a wee one and nudist at heart why he could not go in his birthday suit at home, only at Grandma's in Germany)

Images made clearly for sexual gratification of a non peer...(the old fart getting off on babies in diapers...)

an age limit...somewhere we are kidding ourselves when we think 16-18 are innocent kids.
(on the other hand we seem to be eager and Gung Ho about treating juvenile offenders as 'adults' when it suits our agenda...) 

and showing off naughty bits...well, having them in print is bad enough...
but in this digital age..

and yes, there is the absoluteness of the law: even if the sender dialed the wrong number, the recipient is GUILTY....

ah sigh...

you can't regulate thoughts.
only actions (I think the person who was caught a few years back filming kids at a nudist beach was very happy to be picked up by police...)


I think there is too much intend on regulating these interpersonal experiences, criminalizing trivial incidences while losing sight of the important. 

There is a need for more education, not more laws.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 28, 2011)

granfire said:


> I think there is too much intend on regulating these interpersonal experiences, criminalizing trivial incidences while losing sight of the important.
> 
> There is a need for more education, not more laws.


 
And this comes down to the Parents.  The law should be there to support the parents sure...and sometimes, you are going to get situations where you have the best parents in the world, but the minor does something anyways...and it backfires..etc...

As a parent,(not that I am one, yet) would blame the child for the problem in the first place. Any backlash from other students at school is his/her fault anyways, and i would turn this who situation into a learning experince.  If violence for whatever reason ensues, those situations will be handled seperately.

These minor issues can be handled at the parental and school level...no need  to bring the law into it.


----------



## granfire (Jun 28, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> And this comes down to the Parents.  The law should be there to support the parents sure...and sometimes, you are going to get situations where you have the best parents in the world, but the minor does something anyways...and it backfires..etc...
> 
> As a parent,(not that I am one, yet) would blame the child for the problem in the first place. Any backlash from other students at school is his/her fault anyways, and i would turn this who situation into a learning experince.  If violence for whatever reason ensues, those situations will be handled seperately.
> 
> These minor issues can be handled at the parental and school level...no need  to bring the law into it.




I see it now: Little Susie send Billy Bob a pic of her naughty bits, parents of Little Susie find out 



and blame Billie Bob....

but yeah, education and _parenting_....

novel concept...


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 28, 2011)

granfire said:


> LOL
> 
> I thought it was called 'big wooden spoon' and resides in the kitchen....


 

Just like Mom used to use.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 28, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> 4.) *Branded a Sexual Predator and will have to register for life on the Sex Offenders list.*
> 
> That number 4 there..I HIGHLY disagree with. Minors are minors. They do silly things when they are young, and they get exponged(at least supposed to) when they are 18.


 
I disagree with it in many cases when it involves adults.  it is easier than you might think, to get branded a "sex offender" and spend the rest of your life listed on a registry.  In many of those cases I'd say it's not just.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 29, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> I disagree with it in many cases when it involves adults. it is easier than you might think, to get branded a "sex offender" and spend the rest of your life listed on a registry. In many of those cases I'd say it's not just.


 

Some people that are on that list, SHOULD be on it for life.  The real Sex offenders should be on there...the pedofiles and rapists.

The 18 year old that gets busted for getting lucky with his 17 year old Girlfriend...I don't think so...there is harder crimes to bust.


----------



## granfire (Jun 29, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> Some people that are on that list, SHOULD be on it for life.  The real Sex offenders should be on there...the pedofiles and rapists.



no argument there. The true pervs need to be busted and kept track of!



> The 18 year old that gets busted for getting lucky with his 17 year old Girlfriend...I don't think so...there is harder crimes to bust.



But sadly there are no shades of gray in how the laws are worded.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 29, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> Some people that are on that list, SHOULD be on it for life. The real Sex offenders should be on there...the pedofiles and rapists.
> 
> The 18 year old that gets busted for getting lucky with his 17 year old Girlfriend...I don't think so...there is harder crimes to bust.


 
yeah, it would suck to spend the rest of your life on a sex-offender registry because you were seen taking a pee behind the bush in a public park, because the restrooms were locked.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 29, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> yeah, it would suck to spend the rest of your life on a sex-offender registry because you were seen taking a pee behind the bush in a public park, because the restrooms were locked.


I'd be pissed if that happened to me (pun intended). I do it all the time because we only have 1 bathroom in this house where I live now and my elderly parents tend to *ahem* nap on the throne (yeah giggle away). So I have to find ... alternatives, outside. It'd suck if a cop drove by and saw me tucked away behind the garage or large shrub and then busts me for indecent exposure and I got that stigma stuck on me. 
I think I'd probably be able to explain it in court but still, how stupid is that? 

TMI? :idunno: 

Laws do need revamping in a major way in this country. They're supposed to protect us not hinder us.

An 18 yr. old with a 17 year old girlfriend... c'mon... a year apart and separated by a wording of law. Law makers need to remember how old they were when they lost their virginity... (sure some lost at 18+... but not many).


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 29, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> I'd be pissed if that happened to me (pun intended). I do it all the time because we only have 1 bathroom in this house where I live now and my elderly parents tend to *ahem* nap on the throne (yeah giggle away). So I have to find ... alternatives, outside. It'd suck if a cop drove by and saw me tucked away behind the garage or large shrub and then busts me for indecent exposure and I got that stigma stuck on me.
> I think I'd probably be able to explain it in court but still, how stupid is that?
> 
> TMI? :idunno:
> ...


 
yeah it would suck big time.  I'm paraphrasing the facts a bit, but essentially it's happened and your life is over at that point.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 29, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> An 18 yr. old with a 17 year old girlfriend... c'mon... a year apart and separated by a wording of law. Law makers need to remember how old they were when they lost their virginity... (sure some lost at 18+... but not many).



Take a look at this:

http://www.realpolice.net/forums/archive/t-73812.html



> Daniel Gene-Vincent Sorensen Identified By 1 Fingerprint; Head Not Found
> 
> Nov 9, 2007 1:05 pm US/Central
> 
> ...



The comments on the "Real Police" discussion forum are typical of what I saw everywhere when this story broke.  He was a sex offender, he was probably re-offending and was killed by his victim.  He deserved it, all sex offenders deserve it.  And so on.

Turns out he was a 'sex offender' in the sense you are talking about.  He was from Illinois - he had sex with his underage girlfriend when he was over 18 and she was under 18 - just barely.  Her parents pressed charges.  He pleaded guilty and got a suspended sentence, but had to register on the sex offender's registry for life.  When he was in his 30's, his life was still in tatters.  He could not even rent a place to live - he lived in his truck and worked construction jobs for cash.

Yeah.  He deserved a life of misery and then to have his head cut off (turns out it was done as a thrill-kill by a couple of teenagers, and nothing to do with his past).  He deserved that for the awful crime of having sex with his underage girlfriend when he was just a few months older than her.  He was such a bad man.

But read the comments - as far as the police are concerned (and most citizens), he had it coming.

http://www.teenkillers.org/index.php/memorials/michigan-victims/daniel-gene-vincent-sorensen/

I don't understand people.  Kids sexting each other?  Leave those kids alone!  One kid over 18 and his girlfriend under 18?  Put him on the sex offender's registry for life, destroy his life (even murderers eventually get off parole, but not sex offenders - of any kind) and when he is killed and his head cut off by thrill-kill murderers, cheer for the murderers, because sex offenders have it coming to them!  What kind of f'd up stuff is that?  What's the matter with people?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 29, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Take a look at this:
> 
> http://www.realpolice.net/forums/archive/t-73812.html
> 
> ...


 
yup.  I've said this before in some other threads, and I'll say it again.  here in California, we have a 2000 foot minimum, on how far a registered sex offender must live from any schools, parks, child care, places where children congregate, etc.  Their home must be at least that far from all locations.  The wierd thing is, it's just the home.  They can actually hold employment right next door, and be there all day, every day.  They just cannot have a mailing address and sleep overnight there.

Now in a City like San Francisco, where everything is closely packed together, this mythical 2000 feet doesn't exist anywhere at all, except for one corner of one block in the entire city.  Some units in that particular apartment building fit the bill, but other units on the other end of the building do not.  That is the only place in the entire city where a registered offender can live.

It gets better:  San Francisco is both city and county.  Once you are on the registry, you are not allowed to move out of the county.  So there is no option to move to another city to find a place to live.  You are forced to live within San Francisco, where there are no options to live.

So the registered offenders end up literally homeless, living on the street, and they are no longer trackable by the system.  

the system exists for the purpose of tracking offenders.  When they are forced to live on the street, they are untrackable, and the whole purpose of the system is undermined.  Nobody is safer for it, nobody's life is better for it, and for a whole lot of people, their lives are needlessly destroyed.

There are some people who have demonstrated that they will repeatedly commit some terrible crimes against others, and they need to be dealt with.  But there are a lot of people on those registries who should not be, because the nature of their offense was simply not that terrible, or they are on for a technicality.  It's really stupid, but that's what "Tough On Crime" politics will get for you.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 29, 2011)

I have always said that if society prefers that sex offenders be put to death, fine with me.  Convict them, put them to death.  But if they don't wish to do that, then at some point, their punishment has to be over.  What you've described is not _'tracking dangerous offenders'_, it is _'punishing the bastards forever because they're evil'._  I get the anger and hatred of sex offenders, I really do. But that is a perversion of our system of justice (no pun intended).  If we hate them that much and it's all about punishment, then put them to death or keep them in prison for life.  Don't twist the law so that you can keep hurting these bastards after they're out of prison.  I just don't get that.  And of course, no one can speak up for them, because if you do, you must *like* sex offenders.  Bleah.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 29, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I have always said that if society prefers that sex offenders be put to death, fine with me. Convict them, put them to death. But if they don't wish to do that, then at some point, their punishment has to be over. What you've described is not _'tracking dangerous offenders'_, it is _'punishing the bastards forever because they're evil'._ I get the anger and hatred of sex offenders, I really do. But that is a perversion of our system of justice (no pun intended). If we hate them that much and it's all about punishment, then put them to death or keep them in prison for life. Don't twist the law so that you can keep hurting these bastards after they're out of prison. I just don't get that. And of course, no one can speak up for them, because if you do, you must *like* sex offenders. Bleah.


 
I absolutely agree, that is the real root of it.  If you've committed a crime and paid your dues for it, served your time, done your probation, whatever, then at some point it should be over.  If it ain't over, they you should be back in prison.  At some point it needs to end, it cannot be perpetual punishment under the guise of "freedom" while being on a registry.  Honestly, I do not feel that any type of registry is a good idea.  When I say that the really bad sex offenders need to be properly dealt with, I actually mean in a way that does not include a registry.  Keep him in prison, don't let him out, something like that.

The other big problem with the registry is that it encourages vigilante justice.  If you hate offenders and feel like being a vigilante, just go search the registry for the one who lives nearest to you, and spend your free time hounding him and persecuting him.  that's not justice either.  That's just sick, perverted self-righteousness.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 29, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> I absolutely agree, that is the real root of it.  If you've committed a crime and paid your dues for it, served your time, done your probation, whatever, then at some point it should be over.  If it ain't over, they you should be back in prison.  At some point it needs to end, it cannot be perpetual punishment under the guise of "freedom" while being on a registry.  Honestly, I do not feel that any type of registry is a good idea.  When I say that the really bad sex offenders need to be properly dealt with, I actually mean in a way that does not include a registry.  Keep him in prison, don't let him out, something like that.
> 
> The other big problem with the registry is that it encourages vigilante justice.  If you hate offenders and feel like being a vigilante, just go search the registry for the one who lives nearest to you, and spend your free time hounding him and persecuting him.  that's not justice either.  That's just sick, perverted self-righteousness.



I have always felt uneasy about registries.  I have slowly come to terms with sex offender registries, but I still feel they are too wide-ranging; as others have pointed out in other threads, in some states (Michigan), one can be put on the SO registry for multiple incidents of public urination (indecent exposure).  That's not a sexual predator, as far as I know.  That's not someone we need to be aware of in our community (I mean, I don't want to live next to a guy who pees in the alley on a regular basis, but he's not a danger to children that I'm aware of).

And what is the point of public registries? If the police need to know if there are any known sex offenders in the area of a given crime, I can easily support their having access to such a list.  But do *I* need to know that?  Does my neighbor?

And now we see it going even further.  Anyone for a concealed weapons registry to be made public? There have been attempts made to do so.  Is there an end to forcing people to 'register for life' to 'protect the public'?  In some countries, everyone who has ever been arrested - even if not charged or convicted - has their DNA permanently on file with the police.  In some countries, just being contacted by the police is enough.  In one village in the UK, every male in the village had to give a DNA sample in an effort to catch a rapist.  By the way, they caught him, and that's good.  But to invade the privacy of everyone, to catch one person, and now everyone is on a 'list' until the day they die?  Seems a bit extreme to me.

As always, I worry about the people, many of them conservatives but liberals also, who would defend to the death our freedoms, unless it involves making them *feel safer*, in which case they'd be happy to rip the Constitution to shreds and wipe their butts with it.

In my heart of hearts, I suspect that there are many who would fully support RFID tags implanted in every US citizen and resident, so that we ALL could be tracked 24x7.  After all, if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.  Right?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 29, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In my heart of hearts, I suspect that there are many who would fully support RFID tags implanted in every US citizen and resident, so that we ALL could be tracked 24x7. After all, if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. Right?


 
I still don't have a cell phone, and I'm fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way.  I've never sent a text message, never tweeted, never been on facebook, etc.  Trying desperately to hold on to whatever privacy may be left.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 29, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> I still don't have a cell phone, and I'm fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way.  I've never sent a text message, never tweeted, never been on facebook, etc.  Trying desperately to hold on to whatever privacy may be left.



I don't mind so much giving up aspects of my privacy if it is my choice and I understand the consequences.  I just don't want to have it done to me, without my consent, and without my knowledge.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 29, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't mind so much giving up aspects of my privacy if it is my choice and I understand the consequences. I just don't want to have it done to me, without my consent, and without my knowledge.


 
Oh sure, if an individual wants to give up his own freedoms he can do that.  It gets rough when people want to make that decision and expect everyone to go along with it.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 29, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Take a look at this:
> 
> http://www.realpolice.net/forums/archive/t-73812.html
> 
> ...


We're blending into a different topic entirely here but it does need to be looked at because it's related. 
If the guy at 18 had RAPED the girl at 17 then yeah he's a sex offender. If the two of them were bf/gf and had sex because they loved each other then no, by no means is he a sex offender. Even if she took the initiative and stripped herself down to her birthday suit, stripped him down to his birthday suit and handed him a box of condoms (all of this of her own free and enthusiastic will) ... this does not make the guy a sex offender. A 17 year old guy and a 16 year old girl... is there a difference? Hell no! As long as both parties are consenting. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but it's not an indictable offense. Or it shouldnt' be. 
Now of course the LAW says .... well okay yet the under aged girl needs to be interviewed to see if in anyway she was coerced, forced, manipulated against her best judgement (??) or plied with alcohol/drugs or whatever! If so then charges need to be pressed for statutory rape if the parents of the girl so wishes because it's their right and she is still under their care/supervision. Even THEN the guy shouldn't be put on the register because he's not violent, he's in love and so is she, or they're just horny teenagers for crying out-loud. (ok, ok what do teenagers know about love? right... ask yourself when you were their age and if you were in love with someone who loved you back... same ting, just a different generation).
It's when the girl has said NO (even once -- and *mean* it! and not the coy, flirtatious "no" either), and the guy went ahead and had sex with her anyway...  then it becomes a problem and yeah the guy is a creep and by all rights and definitions an offender. 

Ruining a person's life is very serious business and needs to be taken in serious consideration. Yes I agree that violent sex offenders and pedos need to be on the list and treated like pond scum on a beautiful sunny day (where you say ICK! and throw it away and wash the body part til it's clean). Adults over 21 having sex with a girl at 17 I think need to be slapped on the wrist and be told that is a no-no that there are lots of 18+ year old girls to choose from and that's legal, if he does it again then jail time (say 6-9 months) with a warning that he'll be put on the list and told the consequences of being on that list... and if he does it again then stick him on the list because obviously he didn't learn his lesson or cared enough about his future... even if the girl(s) wanted him to he still should have the presence of mind to know better and say "no". 19 year old and 17 year old...? hrmm... as long as she consents, don't get caught... and use protection dammit. 20 and 17? very sticky... depends on how long they've known each other, like since jr. high or longer. Again as long as she consents. If it's a case of 20 and 16 or younger... then bam right into jail and counseling. But not on the list. 
Kids aren't going to wait... (did you?) so that's why the laws need to be a bit more specific and tailored to the situation of age differences not circumstances. Circumstances can be changed, age differences can't. 


> Harry Stamper: Oscar! You're about 5 minutes older than Grace. Why should I listen to you?
> Oscar: Because I know what it feels like to have your body torn in 1000 different directions and the hormones charging through driving you nuts!
> ~ Armageddon


Same ting applies to sexting. Which is nothing more than a build up to actually ending up in the back seat of your daddy's car, or on the sofa in your best friend's basement.

It's funny though... how it seems that the guy is the one who suffers for sexual indiscretion more than the girl. The girl may get chewed out by her parents and grounded and maybe have their sweet 16 car taken away from them but does she bear a life-long life damaging stigma? 
What about 18 year old girl and a 17 year old boy? Does the girl end up being registered as a sex offender? Or is it a pat on the back "atta boy" for the guy?


----------



## granfire (Jun 29, 2011)

well _rape _is an offense.
_Statutory_ rape is a technicality!


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 29, 2011)

granfire said:


> well _rape _is an offense.
> _Statutory_ rape is a technicality!


True but if I'm not mistaken it when it occurs between minors and that they cannot actually determine if the act was forced and yet charges have been filed. Either way it's by law that determines if it's statutory. If it were 2 16 year olds and both consented but when the parents of one found out, charges are made, an arrest, a confusing court trial because one of them just can't quite remember correctly, and one of them goes to jail anyway, (guessed which one's which). 
I define rape as when one (or the other) has said "no" and fought against it, it's definitely an offense. 
As far as sexting goes, if it's unasked for or refused (by the recipient) then it's harassment and should be dealt with by the law. But I can see how it could be construed as "rape".


----------



## granfire (Jun 29, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> True but if I'm not mistaken it when it occurs between minors and that they cannot actually determine if the act was forced and yet charges have been filed. Either way it's by law that determines if it's statutory. If it were 2 16 year olds and both consented but when the parents of one found out, charges are made, an arrest, a confusing court trial because one of them just can't quite remember correctly, and one of them goes to jail anyway, (guessed which one's which).


well, right there is the problem. Parents can't stand the idea of their little angel having carnal moments....and the poop breaks the sound barrier hitting the fan.



> I define rape as when one (or the other) has said "no" and fought against it, it's definitely an offense.



exactly. The only thing that I see as a bit of a gray area is the persistent convincing...it really didn't mean yes, but it happens anyhow...but still...is it rape?


> As far as sexting goes, if it's unasked for or refused (by the recipient) then it's harassment and should be dealt with by the law. But I can see how it could be construed as "rape".



yes, but as it stands, it's possession of pornographic material...


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 30, 2011)

granfire said:


> well, right there is the problem. Parents can't stand the idea of their little angel having carnal moments....and the poop breaks the sound barrier hitting the fan.


So no upset if Junior is having carnal moments? 

How about when it's the girl sending to the guy unsolicited. 



granfire said:


> exactly. The only thing that I see as a bit of a gray area is the persistent convincing...it really didn't mean yes, but it happens anyhow...but still...is it rape?


How about drunk or under the (voluntary) influence? And still nothing happened (sexually) but accusations can fly easily.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 30, 2011)

I think with this issue and all the other issues being brought up really shows how sensitive socity has gotten.

America is a sue happy, heart on there sleeve country these days.

Teen Sexting should be handled between the parents and the school itself..we don't need blanket laws that cover it.  Calling it child porn is absurd, and a strech, why ruin some kids life.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 30, 2011)

Are there cases of statutory rape that are merely "youthful exuberance?"  Of course.  And I have problems with lifetime labeling of kids for status offenses.

But there are plenty of "consensual" statutory rape cases that are anything but innocent.  An 18 or 20 year old having sex with a 13 year old?  Even if they're "in love", it's not a healthy relationship, and the younger person lacks the maturity to know what's going on.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 30, 2011)

if a teen girl takes a pic of her underage boobs for her BF, she just produced child porn. 

if an 18 yr old can get in legal trouble for having it on his phone, she should damn well get in trouble for producing it.


----------



## granfire (Jun 30, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Are there cases of statutory rape that are merely "youthful exuberance?"  Of course.  And I have problems with lifetime labeling of kids for status offenses.
> 
> But there are plenty of "consensual" statutory rape cases that are anything but innocent.  An 18 or 20 year old having sex with a 13 year old?  Even if they're "in love", it's not a healthy relationship, and the younger person lacks the maturity to know what's going on.



I think we are having a big problem defining maturity levels in our no longer children, but far from being adult offspring.
There is on the one hand the deliberate attempt to keep them in the dark. 
There is no meaningful sex-ed, or other facts off life. The world they are allowed to see is rose colored. Bad things don't happen.

On the other hand there is also a trend to 'treat them like adults' when they commit 'adult crimes' 

So you say a 13 year old has not the maturity....I say that it depends. I think I was pretty mature at 13, my kid is far from it (but I don't mind)
(and then of course the kids not mature enough to have sex, drink, smoke, drive or vote are all over sudden mature enough to go to the big house...)

I think the ultimate responsibility should lay with the parents to give the kids the tools to decide weather or not sex is appropriate. 
you can't do that when visible skin (or bush) is taboo all the time, the body parts are 'down there' and some weird ober ego structure makes it only ok when married to make children. It does not jive with the biological blueprint, once the time trigger is activated the body knows how to put those parts to work. 

No I do not condone anybody having sex with a 13 year old. But I don't see any real value in lumping 13 yo in the same heap with 16 year olds. 

I think the outlines need to be broadened. There needs to be more discretion given in whether or not it actually is a crime. 
There is too much of the puritan spirit in that law that is infringing on the personal rights of the involved people. At one point parents have to hope they taught their values and hope for the best, but they can't enforce them any more.

(on a side note, many times those that aim for the very young sex partner do not have any maturity of their own, the child is more their equal than a partner of their own age. Not to excuse it, but as a point to understand the mechanism)

In the US we are sending mixed messages to our girls (or maybe to the boys, about the girls as well)
We do gussy them up to look like little women. I remember a few years back, when I just had become aware of 'Hannah Montana' somebody who I had to assume was at least 18ish, probably older, telling me that - not sure if there was a distinction between the actress and the character - Hannah was hawt...this particular person might have led me on (pull my leg, etc) but in general speaking, there is a tendency to spiff teenies up to look much older than they are (Miley Cyrus was maybe 14 at the time...) 

A constant diet of L@@K, but don't dare touch?

I think - and that won't change any time soon - that there is a scary disconnect between the carnal world and the public world. The US, inventors of the Playboy and Hustler, home of the last Puritans...have a much higher incident of teen pregnancy than those liberal places in Europe, that basically thrust pictures of boobies at you at every corner. 

Sex is what mature people do. You get more than the 'just say no' to deal with the urges. 
And the kids tend to handle the responsibilities well...(in the 9 years at 'high school', averaging  totaling 700 students on average I only heard of one girl getting knocked up: not believing in birth control for religious reason...the extra curricular activity, well....you see the point...)

The kids need not more protection, but more exposure. And no, not the media type. but honest to goodness _mature_ exposure.


Now where did this start? 

You can't protect the youth by adding more laws.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 30, 2011)

Agreed Gran, more education than laws. 
It becomes I think a problem when parents are trying to do the best they can and their child has sexual indiscretions anyway and so the parents are up in arms and all upset and freaking out and it's gotta be somebody ELSE's fault! 
It's funny how through almost every generation that talking sexual matters with your child is an uncomfortable subject for many parents, not all but quite a few. Kids want to learn and if they're not getting it at home or school then they'll by-god find it somewhere, the net or experienced friends or whatever media they can get their hands on. 

We do set a double standard with all our advertisements that show sexual things in order to sell a product and I think we fail to make our kids understand to whom those ads are supposed to be directed to. 
Ceicei had related a while back a incident where she and her oldest son (then about 12-13) were walking through the mall and past a Victoria's Secret window display and her son asked her about why the lady in the picture was naked? She had to do the explaining. Imagine now if the boy had been walking through the mall on his own and no-one was there to explain the image to him. What is he to think/do with the feelings that are stirred up inside him? Thankfully his mum was able to help him sort it all out. 

Agreed a 13 or even 15 year old doesn't have the maturity level to deal with an ... intimate relationship. But sadly they're gonna have 'em anyway. Not all of them thankfully but probably more than anyone cares to admit. The only thing we can hope for is that they learned about protection, learned about appropriate age levels and that no adult tries to take advantage of their curiosity. 
The law does need to make it clear as to how wide the under 18 age gap will be before it's considered illegal or wrong. 3 years? 4? 
It also needs to be clear as to how to charge a minor for an adult offense. Yes I agree that any nude (provocative) photo of a child is porn. It's definitely wrong when a child sends one to an adult. Yet when a child sends one to another child (bf/gf/hopeful) it's wrong but HOW wrong is it? Is it any more wrong than show me yours and I'll show you mine hiding out in the playhouse in the back yard while mom is taking a nap or cleaning the house? Basically the same thing only virtually. Should the law step in or should parents man-up and take responsibility and handle it according to their values? 
I've been busted as a kid doing the "playing house" game and gotten my *** whupped by my dad and grounded and forbidden by the girl's parents to step on the property ever again or to speak to her. The girl? Dunno what her parents did but from the uproar as I was chased out it was probably similar to my punishment. The law never even came into the picture. Both parents talked and mutually agreed on (whatever... was never privy to the details) and that was that. Own up, have any of you been busted playing house/doctor as kids? What were the results? 
Now lawyers, cops, judges, counselors/therapists/psychologists, clergy and who knows else are dragged on the scene. If we're really lucky the rest of the country finds out because some reporter got ahold of the story. 
Isn't that enough punishment for a teen than having to add a life long black-mark on their record? One that will prevent them from reaching their full potential because nobody will hire them, though they may be naturally gifted in the field of medical research? 

Laws need to be clearer, need to be broader and need to be where parents need to assume a majority of the responsibility to correct the child in their error.


----------



## granfire (Jun 30, 2011)

I think I agree in most points.

just wanting to point out that under current legislation a non provocative shot of an unclothed kid is considered pr0n. that includes that hilarious moment when junior ran across the yard with nothing than the rubber boots and a big grin.

Also that we, as a whole society have come to the conclusion that there is always somebody else to blame for out F***ups. 

I think well educated kids (in terms of the way of the world) tend to have the maturity to not engage in sex. Most are too busy doing 'real' things. 

But we also have '16 and pregnant' 'Teenage Mom' and such lovely exploits of the mishaps of the immature...
maybe we just lack a lot of life in our lives...too much fake stuff, living through other people?


----------



## Blade96 (Jul 1, 2011)

Yeah i agree more than not. Better put away the sexting. Could get people into much trouble especially with the laws protecting minors.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 1, 2011)

A good example of why it *is* the government's business...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/internet/feds-raid-boys-home-over-4chan-child-porn-post


----------



## granfire (Jul 1, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> A good example of why it *is* the government's business...
> 
> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/internet/feds-raid-boys-home-over-4chan-child-porn-post




well, what WAS that image?

Was that a little girl running around in the back yard or was it something sinister?

The way the law is worded: nekked = pr0n, no exceptions.

and this is not sexting either...soooo, no, I suppose when you share an image with a few millions of your best friends, you have to watch out a little more.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 1, 2011)

granfire said:


> and this is not sexting either...soooo, no, I suppose when you share an image with a few millions of your best friends, you have to watch out a little more.



My point is, some girl sends a nasty photo of herself to her boyfriend, who happens to be a guy like this one...


----------



## granfire (Jul 1, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> My point is, some girl sends a nasty photo of herself to her boyfriend, who happens to be a guy like this one...



well, again, that's what _education_ is for. Heck, even Disney channel does it: The internet is forever, once you hit 'send' on an image it left your control.

publicly sharing a pic a girl send him makes him a creep, but not a sexual predator.

however:
it only said a picture of a prepubescent girl. Pretty much all there is to it, by the letter of the law, but really does not tell one a lot about how serious the 'crime' was...especially considering they broke down the door.

We all agree, the real molestors are the scum of the earth (and that is insulting scum!) but current law tars 'offenders' with way to broad a brush.

maybe the pictures were truly disturbing, can't tell (though I have seen a couple of images on 4chan, it is possible) 



(and then of course there will be the follow up, the DA requesting the 15 yo to be tried as adult...<sarcasm>)


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 1, 2011)

and BAM, someone is on the sex offenders list that shouldnt be.................


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 1, 2011)

Quotes from the article that deserves it's own thread... but disturbing none the less as it's related (closely) to the OP... 


> > The DHS are jack-booted thugs. They will break down a door now for any  reason. Remember the woman who defaulted on her student loan?  I do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A 15 year old definitely knew what they were doing when they posted the pics. That the site reported it is a good thing ... that the DHS/FBI's methodology of making the arrest and seizure is something else entirely. Bashing down doors and pointing weapons at everyone? Why not a simple knock and holding up a warrant and badge and say... "hey we got a court-order to enter the premises and to seize what we believe to be child porn"... nice and simple and no-one gets hurt. Like the guy said... how many times have you read about desperate pornographers shooting it out?  
Sure it's a crime and sure it needs to be treated as such but HOW it's treated. 

Wonders if they paid for the busted door/frame? 

I guess I'm a deviant by law because I own a copy of Zeferelli's Romeo and Juliet, you can see Hussey's breast/nipple and Whiting's bare butt -- guess it doesn't matter that it's a fleeting shot does it? ... looks like I'm having a DVD BBQ of that one disk (probably should do a couple others) because I have a movie with a naked underage couple in it. Sigh.


----------



## granfire (Jul 1, 2011)

they don't even have to pay for the door when they get the wrong house.....


----------

