Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm guessing the reason is to identify the penis in the photos, because the photos they busted him sending don't show his face.
I believe your assessment is likely the case.
What the boy almost assuredly did not think would happen is that the girl's Mother would end up seeing his achievement or that the girl would open up to her Mother. Depending on the state's charges, both the girl and the Mother might well serve as good prosecution witnesses.
The statutory rape laws get a bit tricky with high school kids, as it is not uncommon (but fortunately, not all that common) for a just-turned-18 yr old high school boy/girl to be dating someone who is just under the age of consent (say, 15). All states have an age of consent of at least 16, with some opting for 17 and 18. Virginia has an age of consent of 18, with prosecution happening if the victim is 15, so in this case, prosecutors could have brought charges (not necessarily statutory rape charges) against the 18 year-old.
Not entirely true.. All states have an AOC of 16, but some have exceptions to that.
In SC.. a 14 year old can consent to sex with anyone up to (and including) the age of 18. So, if you're 18 and 355 days, you can bang a 14 year old, but the next day it's illegal for up to 2 years.
Much the same in intent as what you mentioned for VA.. But.. Different in that it seems the way the VA law is written, prosecutors reserve the right on whether to prosecute.
Again, i'll mention.. Someone cannot create child porn of themselves. My opinion, of course, but it would immediately solve these texting cases.
If a 16 year old wants to take videos of himself whacking it and send it to a 35 year old.. Fine. You can bust the 35 year old for possession. Not the 16 year old for production. If the 16 year old is SELLING it.. Then you get into another area, perhaps production of porn without a license. 16 year old takes a video of him and his 16 year old girlfriend.. If both consent.. Legal. They send it.. Anyone who has it is at risk of charges. Again, this is my opinion, not actual law.
Not entirely true.. All states have an AOC of 16, but some have exceptions to that.
In SC.. a 14 year old can consent to sex with anyone up to (and including) the age of 18. So, if you're 18 and 355 days, you can bang a 14 year old, but the next day it's illegal for up to 2 years.
Much the same in intent as what you mentioned for VA.. But.. Different in that it seems the way the VA law is written, prosecutors reserve the right on whether to prosecute.
Again, i'll mention.. Someone cannot create child porn of themselves. My opinion, of course, but it would immediately solve these texting cases.
If a 16 year old wants to take videos of himself whacking it and send it to a 35 year old.. Fine. You can bust the 35 year old for possession. Not the 16 year old for production. If the 16 year old is SELLING it.. Then you get into another area, perhaps production of porn without a license. 16 year old takes a video of him and his 16 year old girlfriend.. If both consent.. Legal. They send it.. Anyone who has it is at risk of charges. Again, this is my opinion, not actual law.
You do raise an interesting question though. Let's say some weird 15 year old starts sending me naked pictures of herself. I didn't ask for and I don't want them, but now they're on my phone or in my email.
When the warrant was issued, law enforcement said that they had intended to achieve their goal through an injection that would have sexually aroused him. Then they would have had a photograph taken.
What do they do then - leave him hanging? What if he should happen to suffer in agony from priapsis? Wouldn't any of this be considered cruel and unsusual? The court should hire a professional fluffer.
My question is... does nobody understand the theory of natural rights upon which this country was founded? In the Lockean tradition, of which all of the founders were members to some degree of varying commitment, a natural right is the right to do anything which does not constitute aggressive force against an innocent person, or that person's property. That means that two consenting parties can agree to any exchange of goods or services. It also means that nobody has any right to initiate violent force against the innocent. I think most sound people would agree with these last two statements at face value.
In this instance, the service (I know that's a cold term, but for the purposes of argument, it describes what took place here) was mutual exchange of pornographic materials. Neither party committed any aggressive act against the other.
This argument, of course, gets murky when we talk about children and sexual conduct. Children may, for instance, be subject to pressures from much older individuals and, though they may consent, may not understand the trauma they could experience from said encounter, and may not understand why such conduct is wrong. In this instance, deferring to the parents' judgment is the logical conclusion. Until the age of emancipation (whatever that age, be it 12, 15, 18, 21, 25... whatever), parent and child maintain some level of an implicit agreement to abide by some predetermined code of conduct that the parent believes is in the child's best interest. In violating this code of conduct, the child has (usually unwittingly) violated the agreement with his/her parents, and the adult has violated the sanctity of that child's implicit agreement.
That said, however, this case is slightly more clear-cut, because the age difference was not particularly large. Without speaking to the moral fortitude of either of the involved parties, it is difficult to say that one party committed aggression against the other. It may have been wrong, but from a natural rights perspective (again, the one on which this country was founded... read Jefferson, Madison and Jay to see what I am referring to) no unlawful (read: rights-violating) act was actually committed.
The mother of the young girl, by using government force as a third-party, and the government, by using force of threat (do this or you're going to be kidnapped and locked in a cage) are actually the ones introducing violence into the equation. This would make them the aggressors against two consenting parties. If the children each violated the implicit contract of living under their parents' care, proportional response (again, according to a Lockean theory of justice) would not dictate the introduction of aggressive force on the scale of kidnapping and imprisonment.
The people of this country have, unfortunately, largely lost the ability to distinguish between what is immoral according to each individual's own code of ethics, and what is unlawful according to a theory of natural rights. For instance, a guy who goes to a special needs home and sells popsicles to people who lack a fully functioning mental capacity for, say, $6 a piece, is a moral scumbag. He is a terrible person who has done a terrible thing, but it is the responsibility of the persons close to those in the home to find a way to ostracize that man and make his business untenable. There is no need, nor right, for any party to introduce violent, physical force into this equation. Same with a drug user. While it may be morally horrible to use or sell heroin, according to natural rights theory, nobody else has the right to introduce physical violence into the equation, until it is warranted by a prior or impending violent act, and is a proportional response.
The government is in the wrong here.
I would also like to point out, from a perspective outside of natural rights theory, that if the government thinks that sexual conduct between two minors is somehow damaging to the minors' psyche, it is hypocritical that they would wish to engage in their own sexual conduct with the minor. But this is typical of government. What is wrong for you and I to do (kidnap, robbery, murder, torture) is perfectly acceptable when done in an official capacity (arrest, taxation, war and enhanced interrogation, respectively). I hold, instead, that every individual has a natural, inalienable right to do anything he or she wishes, so long as it does not violate the natural right of another person. And I do not believe that simply wearing an officially-issued costume and a shiny badge somehow exempts you from your compulsion not to violate the natural rights of others.
So I got thinking about this. If some kid of 17 were sending me pics of his dingdong aroused, would I want him prosecuted? Would my husband want him prosecuted? (My ex anyway). And the answer I came up with is, YES, I would. Why wouldn't I? And if that entailed identifying him this way, so be it. By 17, humans know right from wrong.
If I were the mom of a kid sending these pics around would I want him prosecuted? I'm sure I wouldn't.
So I got thinking about this. If some kid of 17 were sending me pics of his dingdong aroused, would I want him prosecuted? Would my husband want him prosecuted? (My ex anyway). And the answer I came up with is, YES, I would. Why wouldn't I? And if that entailed identifying him this way, so be it. By 17, humans know right from wrong.
If I were the mom of a kid sending these pics around would I want him prosecuted? I'm sure I wouldn't.
But what law would you want him prosecuted under? A harassment law or some indecent exposure law, sure. Except this story is about two people who consented(they both sent pictures).
Even in your example, it doesn't make sense to try and prosecute under child porn laws. Your reaction would be exactly the same whether he was 17 or 19 because your problem is that you didn't want to receive the pictures.
This is more equated to your husband sending you picture and you sending him pictures back. The entire interaction in the original story was consensual. She sent the first picture after all, so it's hard to argue otherwise.
You do raise an interesting question though. Let's say some weird 15 year old starts sending me naked pictures of herself. I didn't ask for and I don't want them, but now they're on my phone or in my email.
Yet despite that, under most laws I go to jail.
Kind of a weird rule.
See the above, it's just silly. Cause also girls lie. I was such a girl who lied.
This case is wacky, I'm sure they could get a photo another way. He's 17 too, I'm sure it won't be so traumatic, esp if he really sent them in the first place
As I said before, he is extremely lucky that he was but 17. Had he had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend (legally incapable of consenting) that would have been statutory rape, for which he almost assuredly would be imprisoned from one to five years -- as I understand the penal code for statutory rape in Virginia.
Is it really illegal in Virginia for a 15 and 17 year old to have sex? Here in Colorado a 15 year old can consent to and have perfectly legal sex with those aged 11-25.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
