Arrest around 99% of male high school children for indecent sexual touching (of themselves).
- derumi (del-me)
"Bobby Fischer? Man, that guy is crazy!" - Mike Tyson
The sheriff in Livingston, Michigan says a 14-year-old girl took a cell phone pic of her vagina and sent it to three or four of her friends. Always looking for something to distribute attached to an OMG text message, the pic ended up getting widespread dissemination and the girl and everyone who received a copy of it could face criminal charges. The original gang of four or five "sex criminals" has grown to a total of about 200 possible "criminals."
Tending to final details.
both charges: illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, a second-degree felony; and possession of criminal tools, a fifth-degree felony. (from the last link in the post)
question: what constitutes "criminal tools" in this case? it was not explained in the linked article. given the nature of the charges, i can only assume "criminal tools" is referring to things like a cellphone/camera/internet connection. can this be right? anybody?
3
 1
|
when next am I called for jury duty?
Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 05:10:03 AM EST
5.00 (astute)
|
criminal tools = any tools utilized in the commission of a crime
yes, your criminal justice system is that out of hand that not only does it punish 14 year olds for acknowledging their own sexuality but it figures out more than one way to make the same act criminal.
committing a crime = one charge
using something (anything) to commit that crime = another charge
attempting to not get caught for the crime = third charge
not helping police gather evidence = fourth charge
the fifth amendment is alive and well = false
It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.
4
3
|
Two words: peremptory challenge.
Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:35:40 AM EST
|
Sadly people like you and I are never called, or if called, would never be allowed to serve, on jury duty.
Why are so few of us left active, healthy, and without personality disorders?
To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart it seems this is a case of "I can't define child pornography, but I know it when I see it", and this ain't child pornography. After rooting around I found the specific Ohio state code here: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.323.
(1) Photograph any minor who is not the person's child or ward in a state of nudity, or create, direct, produce, or transfer any material or performance that shows the minor in a state of nudity, unless both of the following apply:
It then goes on to define cases in which parents can consent to nude pictures of their children being taken by someone else, for example to create a work of art, or for medical/scientific purposes. It does not mention children taking pictures of themselves.
To be fair the title of the statute is "Illegal use of minor in nudity-oriented material or performance" - it doesn't attempt to define "child pornography", but it seems this law makes the error of being a bit too specific, without considering all possible parties who could engage in taking pictures of minors. Either you need to be vague and leave it up to "community standards" (whatever those are), or if you are going to create strict criteria, you've got to spell out every possibility, including children taking pictures of themselves.
