What's Your Take on this Decision?

Cool Hand Luke said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
abaddon said:
Were it adults, there might very well be charges.
Click to expand...

Only if there were activities outside of cyberbullying and distribution of intimate images that contravened the criminal code.

The girl was charge with making threats and she was rightly charged just like an adult would be.
 
Loss Leader said:
I have no problem applying the law as written to the child. She should be punished as a juvenile, though.
Click to expand...
I agree.

As a system administrator of a MUD, I've encountered a number of cases where minors (one at age 14) were involved in online sex-texting with adults and other minors that THEY initiated. One was even doing fantasy slave trading with other minors and adults (roleplay.)

We removed them from the MUD.

One problem is that "minor" is defined differently for different states and different countries.
 
LibraryLady said:
I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the effect on the victim in the case.
Click to expand...

Interesting in what respect? It has little bearing on the discussion and everyone pretty much recognizes that cyberbullying is a very bad thing and big issue in our current society.
 
marplots said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point.
 
qayak said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think she should not be charged with child porn. I agree with you that child porn laws were designed to protect children from adult predators. However, I think there should be a "revenge porn" law that would still send he to jail. Distributing sex pics of people as a way to hurt them is despicable and should not be shrugged off.
 
Unabogie said:
I think she should not be charged with child porn. I agree with you that child porn laws were designed to protect children from adult predators. However, I think there should be a "revenge porn" law that would still send he to jail. Distributing sex pics of people as a way to hurt them is despicable and should not be shrugged off.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%.
 
Unabogie said:
I think she should not be charged with child porn. I agree with you that child porn laws were designed to protect children from adult predators. However, I think there should be a "revenge porn" law that would still send he to jail. Distributing sex pics of people as a way to hurt them is despicable and should not be shrugged off.
Click to expand...

qayak said:
Agreed 100%.
Click to expand...

I'm not following this - imagine if the photo had been found on the phone of someone say 30 years old, and it was also found that they had sent it to other people. I'm sure that you would not be saying that the 30 year old should not be charged with distributing child pornography.
 
qayak said:
It isn't a crime in Canada.
Click to expand...

Well, it is when the pictures are of minors, so that's not much help to the perp in this case. If you're upset that it's not also illegal to distribute revenge porn of adults, chin up: it's already been made illegal in Australia, Israel, and some US states. Canada is a progressive country; I suspect it won't be too long before their legislature follows suit.

One study showed that 20% of teens have sent intimate pictures of themselves and that 25% have forwarded those pictures.
Click to expand...

So? Most people have probably shoplifted at some point in their lives. Does that mean we should repeal the laws against theft?
 
So now that she's at 17 has been labelled a pedophile I can only assume she's going to have great difficulty within society and having a decent future. I mean, afterall, who hires pedophiles?

There's gonna be an entire generation of kids with no future because of something stupid they did as a minor. Seems a little unfair to me.

And I don't even want to start thinking how much this is all going to cost the taxpayer.
 
Loss Leader said:
In my country, under certain circumstances you can try and punish a youth as an adult.
Click to expand...


Yes, I understand that, hence my clarification for what happens here in Canada. :)

Not everyone agrees with the YCJA however, and feel some youths ought to be subject to harsher penalties for certain crimes.
 
Darat said:
I'm not following this - imagine if the photo had been found on the phone of someone say 30 years old, and it was also found that they had sent it to other people. I'm sure that you would not be saying that the 30 year old should not be charged with distributing child pornography.
Click to expand...

Correct. I think the age of the perpetrator is absolutely a factor. For example, two five year olds play doctor and mom comes home. Should they charge one five year with child molestation? Of course not. If one of the "doctors" was 30, then throw the book at him. Likewise, what this girl did was not kiddie porn. Those laws should be restricted to actual cases of kiddie porn. What she did was something else, something rotten in its own case, which deserves its own category and manner of punishment.
 
Darat said:
I'm not following this - imagine if the photo had been found on the phone of someone say 30 years old, and it was also found that they had sent it to other people. I'm sure that you would not be saying that the 30 year old should not be charged with distributing child pornography.
Click to expand...

The intent was not to create or distribute child porn. The intent was cyberbullying. Even the working group charged by the government to look into laws on cyberbullying and distribution of intimate images finds a problem with using child porn laws to punish children in this manner. (See my earlier citation)

If these two had been adults and this cyberbullying had taken place, there would be no child porn charges. The only charge would be the threatening charge.

ETA: My point is, the charges should reflect, and the punishment fit, the crime. If you want to make cyberbullying a crime, do so, don't torture child porn laws to punish children.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Darat said:
From the article I'm on the side of the courts in this one.
Click to expand...

The penalty, if there is one, should be on the order of an adult new girlfriend sending around nudies of the former girlfriend, rather than "child porn". This was no more child porn in their world than sex between them is pedophilia.
 
colander said:
Well, it is when the pictures are of minors, so that's not much help to the perp in this case. If you're upset that it's not also illegal to distribute revenge porn of adults, chin up: it's already been made illegal in Australia, Israel, and some US states. Canada is a progressive country; I suspect it won't be too long before their legislature follows suit.
Click to expand...

I'm not upset about anything. Which is why I don't understand the people who say they can't work up "enough outrage" to respond. What does outrage have to do with a discussion?

So? Most people have probably shoplifted at some point in their lives. Does that mean we should repeal the laws against theft?[/QUOTE]

Do you really think the intent of child porn laws is to punish children who send nude pictures of themselves to other children?
 
marplots said:
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.
Click to expand...

qayak said:
That's an interesting point.
Click to expand...

Now that I have had time to think on this, and do a little research, I can offer up a response.

The issue with this case is that it is not a child porn case, it is a cyberbullying case. This was not for profit, nor was there "sexual gratification" gained by her or a "sexual purpose" to the images. They were nude images sent in an attempt to humiliate the victim.

So, in my view, the child porn laws already cover the issue you brought up. They don't reflect the facts of this case though. In truth, under the definition of child porn as it is set out in the CC of C I don't really see how the charge could even be brought.

163.1 (1) In this section, “child pornography” means

(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or (ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;
(b) any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act;
(c) any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act; or
(d) any audio recording that has as its dominant characteristic the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.
Click to expand...

I think that perhaps the judge realized that until this is brought up in front of the Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds judges would be forced to make do with poorly conceived laws when dealing with these cases. Without a conviction the Supreme Court of Canada would not likely hear the case.

Unfortunately, this child gets to be the guinea pig for the failure of adult lawmakers to deal with the problem of cyberbullying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom