What's Your Take on this Decision?

[qayak]

What's your opinion? A 16 year old teen found guilty of possession and distribution of child porn when she texted nude photos of her boyfriend's ex girlfriend.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...n-guilty-of-distributing-child-porn-1.2491605

I side with her lawyer. The laws were never meant for this. They were meant to protect children from predatory adults not for destroying children's lives. Just like this child could not be charged with statutory rape, she should not be charged with possession and distribution of child porn.

The age of the victim matters, so does the age of the accused. If this were an adult texting pictures of an adult, there would be no charges. We hold children to a higher standard which is counter to what the law was intended to do in my opinion.

Under the current law she will get somewhere between 6 months and 10 years in jail along with other consequences.

 

[marplots]

If we adopt that point of view, would it be permissible for a 16 year old to go into kiddie porn production? Should they, for example, be allowed to sell pictures of themselves online?

While the lawyer's arguments have merit, at least part of the purpose of the law is to stop the unwanted behavior - the distribution of pornographic images of those underaged. Allowing an exception, for what amounts to the same end, is a door that should only be opened with great caution.

 

[Ray Brady]

It was a despicable act, committed with the worst of intentions. I would have a hard time working up any sympathy for the accused. She should be tried for the crime she committed, and punished accordingly.

 

[Corsair 115]

I side with her lawyer. The laws were never meant for this. They were meant to protect children from predatory adults not for destroying children's lives.

I would agree. Parliament should craft new law specifically for the type of event which transpired in this case, rather than having the Crown having to shoehorn it into another section of the law.

But until such new law is crafted, it would seem we're stuck with the current situation.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

If we adopt that point of view, would it be permissible for a 16 year old to go into kiddie porn production? Should they, for example, be allowed to sell pictures of themselves online?

Surely there are Libertarians who think so.

I mean obviously it would be illegal because of current laws, but surely anyone that argues that as long as there is no outright coercion, the individual would be an entrepreneur making use of a free market.

 

[angrysoba]

What's your opinion? A 16 year old teen found guilty of possession and distribution of child porn when she texted nude photos of her boyfriend's ex girlfriend.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...n-guilty-of-distributing-child-porn-1.2491605

I side with her lawyer. The laws were never meant for this. They were meant to protect children from predatory adults not for destroying children's lives. Just like this child could not be charged with statutory rape, she should not be charged with possession and distribution of child porn.

The age of the victim matters, so does the age of the accused. If this were an adult texting pictures of an adult, there would be no charges. We hold children to a higher standard which is counter to what the law was intended to do in my opinion.

Under the current law she will get somewhere between 6 months and 10 years in jail along with other consequences.

How old was the victim? I don't see any age mentioned in the article.

But anyway, this is not holding a child to a higher standard than an adult, because if an adult sent nude pictures of a child to the child's Facebook page then I would expect the adult to be prosecuted too. Do you disagree?

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

My personal opinion: our society worries far too much about sex, and far too little about violence and wealth disparity.

However, I am also in favor of raising the age for lots of things like driving a car and joining the army. Your brain hasn't even finished wiring correctly until your mid-20's.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Just to be clear, if someone photographed my underaged kid naked, I'd want to take a tire iron to them. As an aside, I think in general our society is insane when it comes to sex and nudity. Repressed and hysterical.

 

[Loss Leader]

I have no problem applying the law as written to the child. She should be punished as a juvenile, though.

 

[Corsair 115]

I have no problem applying the law as written to the child. She should be punished as a juvenile, though.

That's automatic as, given her age, she falls under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

 

[abaddon]

What's your opinion? A 16 year old teen found guilty of possession and distribution of child porn when she texted nude photos of her boyfriend's ex girlfriend.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...n-guilty-of-distributing-child-porn-1.2491605

I side with her lawyer. The laws were never meant for this. They were meant to protect children from predatory adults not for destroying children's lives. Just like this child could not be charged with statutory rape, she should not be charged with possession and distribution of child porn.

The age of the victim matters, so does the age of the accused. If this were an adult texting pictures of an adult, there would be no charges. We hold children to a higher standard which is counter to what the law was intended to do in my opinion.

Under the current law she will get somewhere between 6 months and 10 years in jail along with other consequences.

Were it adults, there might very well be charges.

Nonetheless, I agree with your general point. Teens do stupid things. I did, when I was a teen. Prosecuting this as kiddie diddling is nonsense. Hormonal teens is all it is.

 

[Loss Leader]

That's automatic as, given her age, she falls under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

In my country, under certain circumstances you can try and punish a youth as an adult.

 

[colander]

Just to be clear, if someone photographed my underaged kid naked, I'd want to take a tire iron to them. As an aside, I think in general our society is insane when it comes to sex and nudity. Repressed and hysterical.

It is the very existence of those societal attitudes that makes distributing nude pictures of other people without their permission an act deserving of punishment.

 

[tyr_13]

I don't have a problem with it. It's the applicable law and she's charged as a minor. Note that the victim of the case wasn't charged with creating child porn and the ex boyfriend wasn't charged with possession.

While I think there are many dysfunctions around sexual crimes from poor enforcement to over zealous enforcement to nonsense designations, this doesn't strike me as that problematic. Perhaps there should be a different offense covering such actions, and perhaps this will let people re-evaluate the harshness of sex offender status, but as it stands it seems fairly just to me.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm having a wee bit of difficulty working up any outrage I have to say. Kids getting into a fight can be charged with assault, and this is not dissimilar.

Rolfe.

 

[Magyar]

It was a despicable act, committed with the worst of intentions. I would have a hard time working up any sympathy for the accused. She should be tried for the crime she committed, and punished accordingly.

^^^^^^. This! She deserves some level of fairly serious punishment, but not child pornography.

 

[qayak]

It is the very existence of those societal attitudes that makes distributing nude pictures of other people without their permission an act deserving of punishment.

It isn't a crime in Canada. One study showed that 20% of teens have sent intimate pictures of themselves and that 25% have forwarded those pictures.

A work group was formed to deal with this and cyberbullying but I don't believe any legislation has come out of it yet.

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

I would note that an interesting factor here is the lack of jury trials for juvenilles.

I doubt the kiddie porn charge would have been brought if a jury had been involved. It would have almost certainly hung the jury and wasted everyone's time. Because kids generally aren't entitled to juries, though, a prosecutor is much more likely to reach with these kinds of severe charges.

Another example is a case in my area where a 5 year old boy was charged with sexual assault for "playing doctor" with some other kids and touching one of them on the anus. Put that charge before a jury and it's an embarrassment for the prosecutor. Put it before a judge and it's just another case. (Although it did turn into an embarrassment because the family went public with it.)

In the end, though, this girl will get appropriate punishment for a juvenile so I can't really feel all that troubled about it. As Loss Leader noted, here in the US we can try some juveniles as adults. I've seen some kids really get screwed over by that system.

Cheers,
Luke.

 

[qayak]

^^^^^^. This! She deserves some level of fairly serious punishment, but not child pornography.

I would agree with you but the only law she contravened was the child porn law.

My point is that a law should be in place so that the child porn laws don't have to be twisted beyond their scope and that law should be in place for adults as well.

If an adult did what this girl did, that is send nude pictures of her boyfriend's ex, NOTHING would happen. The child is held to the higher standard which is what happened with the former Young Offenders Act in Canada. Children were getting greater punishments for crimes than adults committing the same offence.

 

[qayak]

I'm having a wee bit of difficulty working up any outrage I have to say. Kids getting into a fight can be charged with assault, and this is not dissimilar.

Rolfe.

Kids getting in a fight can be charged with assault so can adults. Adults sending nude pictures of their boyfriend's ex can't be charged, but a child can.

There was no intention of distributing child porn, the intention was to bully and embarrass, but there is no law against that yet.

In fact the working group on cyberbullying and transmission of intimate images stated:

Although the child pornography provisions address the distribution of intimate images of children under the age of 18 years, some Working Group members believe that section 163.1 is too blunt an instrument to address the core behaviour at issue, especially in situations where the perpetrator is also under the age of 18.

They also stated:

In relation to adults, there are concerns relating to the ability of the criminal law to respond to this behaviour, absent additional aggravating features that may bring the conduct at issue within the scope of existing offences. 34 Existing offences do not adequately address the harm that is caused by the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.

The Young Offenders Act states that a child is to receive a lesser sentence than an adult would receive for the same crime but an adult wouldn't even be charged in this situation.