I think it is very telling that the girl wasn't also charged.
Don't get me wrong, I think it is utterly crazy that ANYONE was charged in this case. It is a victimless crime. But reading between the lines there's a certain puritanical undertone to all of it.
In most other Western countries this would not be illegal in this way. But the US is extremely religious and has quite an unhealthy attitude to teenage sex (which ironically results in one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the Western world also).
I genuinely wonder how the people who preside over cases like this (e.g. cops, prosecutor, even the judge) sleep at night. They're actually doing more harm to everyone (including society) than the supposed "crime."
> As Judith Levine notes in Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex: “One striking pair of contradictory trends: as we raise the age of consent for sex, we lower the age at which a wrongdoing child may be tried and sentenced as an adult criminal. Both, needless to say, are ‘in the best interests’ of the child and society.” We want teenagers to be adults when they commit crimes and “children” when they have sex, which tells you more about our culture than about teenagers.
> And, as Laurie Schaffner points out in a separate essay collection, “[...] in certain jurisdictions, young people may not purchase alcohol until their twenty-first birthday, or may be vulnerable plaintiffs in a statutory rape case at 17 years of age, yet may be sentenced to death for crimes committed at age 15 [....]”
> Laws, including those embodied in Face Forward, reflect race and gender norms: white girls are the primary target of age-of-consent laws, while African American youth are the target of laws around crime and delinquency. The contradictory trends are readily explained by something rather unpleasant in society.
I agree. The sexist double standard in statutory rape convictions where both parties are underage is not only incredibly unjust to young males but insulting to the young women. It sends the message while teenage guys have the ability to make informed and mature decisions about sex, teenage girls who choose to have sex or engage in other sexual behaviors (such as sexting) are just silly little girls who don't know what they're doing and should be protected.
The sjw's keep trying to dull their side of the double edged sword called equality. My jimmies are at maximum rustle everytime I read an article about boys having to pay child support when they are the victims of statutory rape. There is little to no pity for them, I've witnessed it first hand.
The girl's mother filed a complaint, the boy's mother presumably didn't. So it doesn't necessarily say much that the boy was charged but the girl wasn't.
He's being tried for "possession of child pornography and manufacturing child pornography." The article says, in plain text, that she did exactly the same thing. It strongly implies that she initiated.
Who reported it is irrelevant, especially since the person reporting was neither of the kids involved. For identical crimes, either both of them should be arrested or neither of them. Anything else is injustice and a failure.
The whole "pressing charges" thing is mostly overplayed in popular culture. Police departments may certainly have a process for filing a complaint, and prosecutors may certainly prefer to have a cooperative complaining witness, but the putative victim of a crime has no formal role in the criminal justice process. A crime is considered an offense against the state, and the state is the party that decides who and whether to prosecute.
> In most other Western countries this would not be illegal in this way.
I'm not sure about that. Possession of child pornography is a serious crime in most Western countries, and the courts don't really care about excuses, explanations, or the fact that the crime is victim-less. Actually, in most countries, even non-child porn that looks like child porn is illegal (drawings, computer-generated images, adult actors that look like children, ...).
Actually, in many countries the courts are much more reasonable with regards to interpretation and application of the law. Not just that, but they care about balance between intent of the law, effect and means.
There is no way that say in Germany today the police could get away with trying to induce and photograph a teenage boy's erection for a sexting incident. It is such a fundamental violation of human dignity. I cannot even begin to imagine the press coverage and criminal indictments of the people involved.
In a very recent case here in Uruguay, an adult had consensual sex with a 14-year old minor, got her pregnant, and made her take an abortion pill.
The girl's mother called the police, and it surfaced that the girl had lied about her age and name to the man, so he was found guilty but his sentence was 45 days probation only (no jail time) and an 120 day restraining order.
A search for similar cases in the U.S. surfaces: 10 years jail time, 38 years of jail time, etc..
Except only in the US would this kid face a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence for each image (if it were a federal case). I don't know what he's facing since it's Virginia rather than federal charges.
I'd challenge you to name a single case in a non US country where one of the participants have been charged with possession of child pornography because two kids sexted each other. I've never heard of one.
That's a bit scary. Who gets to decide what it looks like?
I'm sure there's many places in the law where discretion is used by someone in authority to determine guilt or innocence, but it still frightens me when I see it.
I don't know about the pictures but they could have legally slept with each other in Austria. I have never heard of sexting cases here unless the pictures were made available to a wider public.
"there's a certain puritanical undertone to all of it" which is ironic since those pure public officials want/need to violate the teenager in order to maintain their pure/innocent perception.
The idea of taking a male teen and stimulating his penis to erection for the purposes of the prosecution sounds nuts, but the nutty part is that it doesn't sounds nuts to the Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney. Granted, she may just be saying that as a negotiation tactic, but even that is sociopathic.
But, man, if I lived in that area I would be running for election come the next round, and I'd beat this story into the ground for the entire campaign. Not that I'd want the job. I've run for office, and thankfully lost thus far. But this is one of those times that it's better to have someone who doesn't know what they're doing (and believe me, there are few less qualified for the job of AG of VA than I) than to let these nutcases continue to run the asylum.
In this hypothetical case, were I to lose and the incumbents stayed in, this would be the sign for any VA resident to get the hell out as your neighbors obviously think this is okay.
As an aside, "special <penis matching> software". Man, I've heard of some verticals in my day, but I'm hoping that's an outrageously small market. (Of course, the guy they quoted is just bullshitting.)
I think what the parties involved intend to do is garner votes, fluff their career, or "just follow orders". What those parties are ignoring, either willfully or otherwise, is that they have to commit child abuse in order to achieve those goals. (And, sure, there are probably a few pedophiles in the chain that are looking forward to the implementation of the Assistant Attorney's wishes.)
While I agree with almost your entire line of thought, your () makes me facepalm. Wanting to see a 17 year old naked does not make one a pedophile. In this case it's definitely wrong, a misuse of power, and breaks the law. However, he is definitely not a prepubescent child.
Manassas is in northern VA, not that far from DC. It's not exactly a bastion of puritanical fundamentalism or anything. I really shudder to think that this kind of behavior is the sort of thing that would bolster your career there. If there are people there who are ready to vote for officials because they pull shit like this, then I have lost all hope for humanity.
I read that article very carefully and the whole crazy claim comes from the defense lawyer, who has a vested interest in portraying the prosecution as massively overstepping their bounds. I'm skeptical that they actually threatened to drag the kid down to the hospital and give him an involuntary erection so they can take photos of it. And I'm even more skeptical that they'd actually try to do it.
Note the quote from the Commonwealth Attorney: Prince William County Commonwealth’s Attorney Paul B. Ebert said that police told him “these allegations [by the lawyers] lack credibility.” They're saying that it's not credible that the threat actually occurred, which likely means that even if it did, they realize how stupid it would be to actually follow through with it at this point.
Don't get me wrong, I'm against the idea of them prosecuting the kid for sending dick pictures, but I'd like to see that fail on its own (lack of) merit.
That's true, but bear in mind that the defense lawyer is asserting that a) police have already taken a photo of the defendant's genitalia; and b) the affidavit for the search warrant they have filed with the court describes the idea of taking the teen to the hospital to induce and photograph an erection. (EDIT: I'm inferring the latter slightly, but justifiably I believe. If they expect to find other sexually-themed pictures the search warrant could be for his computer, digital camera etc., and chances are it includes those search targets. But if, per the story, the warrant can't be served without the defendant being around, I think it's a reasonable inference that the defendant's person is itself an object of their search.)
While these allegations sound bizarre, the existence of the photo and affidavit's contents are questions of fact, and if they do exist those materials are in the possession of the court. I can't think of a court that would entertain motions concerning documents whose existence the court knew to be a fiction. Even making unfounded claims of this sort in public seems like it could result in sanctions.
It's at least as plausible that the government attorneys and/or the police are being dishonest. Prosecutors have already fouled the case up once resulting is a dismissal (for failure to certify the defendant as a juvenile). Since people on the government side have a great deal to lose if the allegations turn out to be true, they certainly have an interest in denying the allegations.
Presumably WaPo verified the claims made in this article. Frankly, I find it very easy to believe. It reminds me of the case of a man pulled over for a minor infraction (not wearing a seatbelt?) and the cop was convinced the man had drugs. He searched the man, the car, and found nothing. Called a search dog. Claimed the dog found something - and wanted a cavity search. Dragged the man to a hospital to force him to be cavity searched - the doctor refused. At the next hospital, the doctor agreed. They found nothing, of course. Then, the hospital proceeded to bill the man they searched for the procedure. He's suing the hell out of the police department, but who knows what will happen.[1]
And then of course there was this woman, who had something similar happen.[2] And you know that they are not the only ones - they are just the ones who made a stink about it and got national news coverage.
More generally, prosecutors love leverage, the more the better (which is a big reason why they don't want to legalize pot). They leveraged Aaron Swartz, too.
I trust the Washington Post - and I further trust that if the WaPo made a mistake, the Manassas PD and DA would be making a big stink about it.
Who I don't trust are juries who, like you, still have an irrational belief in the government and the police - that they are infallible, impartial, and concerned only with serving justice and keeping us safe. The truth is that they are vicious, prejudiced bullies who have a tremendous amount of unchecked power and almost no accountability, operating within a complicated system that they have mastered against suspects who are often cowed in to pleading guilty just to avoid inordinate punishment for things they never did. It's a shit show.
They can't verify the claims because the documents in the case are under seal, not least because of it being a juvenile case and the search warrant not having been served yet.
Newspapers can and do report surprising legal claims that originate with an attorney because such claims are essentially backed by the attorney's professional reputation, and could result in sanctions or even disbarment if they were made without foundation.
Edit to add: Who I don't trust are juries [...]
I'm with you on that. If unjustly accused I would far rather have the decision made by someone trained to weigh evidence and who will have to state the basis of his/her findings of fact for the record, where they can be challenged at appeal if they are not well founded.
One needs to weigh the balance of probabilities: what is the probability that the defense attorney is mischaracterizing the prosecutions demands, vs the probability that the DA is actually demanding a forced medical procedure unless the kid pleads guilty?
Given the evidence of past police misconduct in the narrow area of forced medical procedures as a form of extra-legal coercement, the benefit of the doubt here has to go to the defendant.
> Presumably WaPo verified the claims made in this article.
If they had verified the claims, why wouldn't they say so? It would certainly make the article more effective. I don't have any particular belief in the government and police, but I do pay close attention to what articles are implying versus what they are claiming, because for an honest news source, it tends to highlight the differences between what they have verified and what they haven't.
Edit: to be completely clear, the article does not say the prosecutor made these threats. The article says that the defense attorney says the prosecutor made these threats.
"But, man, if I lived in that area I would be running for election come the next round, and I'd beat this story into the ground for the entire campaign."
The "root" of all this evil is the fact that politicians have little incentive and much disincentive to run on a platform (or mention an issue) where they would actually even come close to touching a subject like this with a ten foot pool.
I mean if there ever was a third rail it is this entire subject.
<cue "the ominous voice" that does the "my opponent is evil" campaign ads...>
"The police are supposed to protect your children from predators. The Attorney General's office is supposed to prosecute those who would do your children harm. But as the events in Manassas City demonstrate, they are wolves in sheep's clothing. mikestew promises to protect your children, not prey on them. Elect mikestew and he'll make sure the people you're supposed to trust aren't taking nekkid pictures of your kids."
Okay, that last sentence might need a little rewording, possibly explaining why I've never been elected to office. But I can't imagine that a decent campaign manager couldn't pull this off in a tasteful manner while still getting the point across.
I'm not really sure if I'm in the minority or not, but I really don't see a crime happening here. Maybe you ground them and take away their phones, but, I mean, these kids are under the guardianship of their parents and are presumably in a relationship that both sets of parents have (at the very least) acknowledged. It's not like he just sent her the video out of the blue with no warning.
I don't see a crime here, when both parties are in a relationship and both consent to the transaction.
I really hope you aren't in the minority. I agree with you. I find it absurd that it's a crime for 2 dating teenagers to be "sexting". The worse part is when one is 18 and the other is 16 or 17 or something (depending on where you live laws are different). The things they be charged with is absurd. And then as a bonus they get to be on the sex predators database for the rest of their lives for having consensual sex with their significant others.
I've heard of a few cases where people end up on the sex offender list for things like this. Things that don't sound like a "predator" at all, like being caught with a prostitute. I understand what the list is for, but we need to be careful putting people on it, because you could be ruining their life.
I've heard of people getting put on the sex offender list for taking a leak in public. I guess if your wang is out for any reason you are a sexual predator and must be punished as such. stupid.
The strangest thing about this is that the boy is considered both the victim and the perpetrator of the crime.
The teen is facing two felony charges, for possession of child pornography and manufacturing child pornography
The only thing he's being charged with is manufacturing and possessing pictures of himself. These laws obviously exist to protect children from predators and in this case, the district attorney is saying that he is both the child and the predator. It's a preposterous (though not unprecedented) use of these laws.
It's quite clear the the mother doesn't approve of this relationship and she is using the law to clamp down on it. There may be something about the relationship that offends some people's sensibilities (ex: interclass or interracial dating) which is providing the DA cover to do this nonsense.
> Foster said the case began when the teen’s 15-year-old girlfriend sent photos of herself to the 17-year-old, who in turn sent her the video in question.
He possesses the photos of his girlfriend, and he manufactured the photos of himself.
It isn't certain that he is in possession of anything. Which yields another question: If you receive sexually explicit photos of an underage person on Snapchat, which deletes the photos immediately after you receive them, what child pornography laws did you violate? And could you be prosecuted for it, given that you had no idea what you were about to receive before you opened them?
You're thinking logically, it really is the rest of the world that's crazy in this case. Two teens, in a relationship, who can legally have sex with each other (and likely have) what is the fuss about?
Hmm, the federal law might actually apply in this case as it's a text that presumably crosses state lines. However, I grew up in a state where I could legally have sex at 16; even then there were romeo and juliet laws that would allow sex with an older individual if they are close in age. It's a little crazy to find that you can have sex but not over the phone.
No, your opinion falls under "common sense" and "healthy attitude towards sexuality" – two traits that quite a number of members of our species seem to lack.
I agree. This is a completely victim-less "crime". The part that bothers me the most, however, is that the girlfriend is not being charged too. Explain that.
EDIT: Not that I think either of them should be charged, just that if one is, they both should be.
The article says that the mother of the girl filed the complaint. It doesn't indicate whether anyone has filed one in the other direction; perhaps the guardians of the boy find the idea of prosecuting this behavior repugnant. (And I think it's common for the authorities to choose not to pursue consensual underage cases in the absence of a complaint.)
The complaint made by the girl's mother merely made the state aware of the situation. The state is prosecuting. It is free, and some would say obliged, to prosecute the girl as well, since it has the same reason to she has committed a crime.
You're likely not in the minority by being in the group that would look at this case and think, what a load of nonsensical bullshit, this obviously is contrary to justice and is harming everyone much more than the original "offending" act thereby victimizing all involved regardless of guilt or affiliation to the act.
You however would be in the minority if you were upset about the atrocious state of sex laws and their enforcement/sentencing (with mandatory sentencing provisions in most cases) so much so that you felt compelled to support the reform of sex laws and registry requirements (a subject that few would touch with a pole of any length). But you wouldn't be alone.
Even Patty Wetterling, board chair of the National Center for Exploited and Missing Children, has stated that "We've cast such a broad net that we're catching a lot of juveniles who did something stupid or different types of offenders who just screwed up.. They are very different from the man who took Jacob" referring to her son who was abducted as a young child.
Considering how inaccurate news reports tend to be when it's about something you are personally aware of, I'm guessing this article was pretty much written by the defense lawyer in an attempt to paint the prosecutor in a bad light. You have no idea how many important details could have been left out.
Like what? The facts of the case are pretty well laid out in the article. What are you suggesting they covered up that could really change our perspective of the case?
Even if the two teenagers were sleeping together that wouldn't change most people's perspective of this case, it certainly wouldn't change mine.
All I know is people who write these kinds of news reports with obvious motives behind them are strongly incentivized to misrepresent the facts or leave some out entirely. Maybe the boy is being charged with other crimes as well - bad ones, and this charge is expected to get dropped. The story just seems ridiculous as written, and that's usually a sign that there is much more to it than what they wrote.
What could possibly explain injecting a teen at a hospital to induce an erection? It's just plain disgusting even if there is a legal explanation (highly unlikely).
While I think most people generally agree, the idea here is that a minor can't legally 'consent' because they supposedly aren't mature enough to make decisions for themselves.
It's a lot like how you can apparently still be liable for your decision if you drive drunk, but if you have sex drunk you were raped in the eyes of the law (two drunk people raped each other?)
Right, but in this case, both are minors. Since neither can consent, the consent rests in the hands of the legal guardians -- the parents, and since we can probably assume the parents were aware of the relationship (if not the sexual aspects of it), then that means the parents are ultimately responsible... at least that's my interpretation of it.
Either way, a crime has not been committed here, imo.
The government in this case has completely lost its mind. Let's recap here:
A teenage girl sent pictures to her teenage boyfriend. He is now charged with receiving child pornography.
The teenage boy sent a video back to his teenage girlfriend. He is now charged with manufacturing child pornography.
In order to gather evidence, the government is seeking a warrant to take sexual pictures of the person whose own self-produced picture is considered child pornography.
The authorities have stated that they are doing this to warn kids of the dangers of sexting. The dangers are, precisely, that the government is out of their fucking mind and will go to any length to prosecute people over any absurd bullshit it possibly can.
Most acts aren't crimes if police do them as part of their job. They are allowed to assault and kidnap people, take their possessions, possess drugs, break traffic laws, trespass, etc.
There are exceptions, it remains to be seen if this is one of them.
"the case began when the teen’s 15-year-old girlfriend sent photos of herself to the 17-year-old, who in turn sent her the video in question."
For fuck's sake.
Actual intercourse between the two would be punishable by at most a $250 fine in Virginia since the boy is a minor and the girl is less than three years younger - if anyone was wondering.
"Police also arrested the teen and took him to juvenile jail, where Foster said they took photos of the teen’s genitals against his will." - charge the police with creation and possession of child pornography.
The case is absurd. The prosecutor in the case is trying to make a name for himself, and unfortunately in our system that is completely legal.
However, requesting, issuing, and following this order could quite easily fall under conspiracy to produce child pornography. The prosecutor that made the request, any doctors involved, the judge that signed the order, and the police involved in carrying it out could potentially all be federally indicted and/or sued for this. They are immune from prosecution and lawsuits except in cases of blatantly illegal conduct, where this clearly falls.
This is insane, no doubt, but a bit of context for those who haven't seen this happen before. I was in a very similar situation many years ago before sexting.
Most times an 17-year-old dates somebody a year or two younger and everything is fine: nobody cares what they're doing. Parents like the kid, the kids behave well, and nobody is the wiser.
Every now and then, however, mom and dad hate the bozo that's dating little Chris. So they try to stop it, but that doesn't work. So they drag the cops in and demand that somebody "do something" Over the years, more and more laws have been set up to "do something", usually about child predation, not this scenario.
In most of these cases, the cops try to calm things down by trying to de-escalate. But sometimes this does not work, so the Commonwealth's Attorney throws the book at the older partner.
It gets worse when the older kid is 17 because there's a time element to it. You charge them as a 17-year-old, they've got a chance to have it all expunged when they reach adulthood. You charge them as an 18-year-old, the mess just gets bigger. Meanwhile the parents (and perhaps the community) is out for blood.
I was lucky in that no charges were pressed, but parents can get very angry -- like come over to your house and shoot you angry. The law in this case is probably the lesser of two evils. I imagine the way the cops want it to play out is that the DA charges the adult with 57 felonies, the kid gets a lawyer, they strike a deal and reduce them all to a misdemeanor and probabtion with the condition that the dating pair stay apart. Parents are happy, society is happy.
I'm not saying I agree with any of this. It's completely nuts. And you can always run into a true believer DA who really is on a crusade. Quite frankly this erect penis nonsense sounds like that might be what we have here. And that's a freaking scary situation. But most of the time this is just a case of using a hammer to kill a fly that keeps landing on your knee.
Having said all of that, the law is insane and must be fixed. Just wanted to point out that sometimes these things don't look as completely crazy from the inside as they do from the outside.
After reading that I got outraged like everyone else, but thinking about this again, I believe @fragsworth downthread has a good point [0].
Because what is more likely - that the prosecution went batshit insane, or that the journalist is plain lying to us, omitting relevant details in order to spin it into a small scandal? Hint: think of every time a story was reported about something you had first-hand knowledge about.
There's a widely known scandal in my country that is often repeated as an argument for the great injustice of our IRS. The story, as told by national TV and paper, is that a baker was ruthlessly taxed (and subsequently put out of business) for leftover bread that he gave to an orphanage for free instead throwing it away. "Oh, the evil government is punishing good people", cried the nation. It grew into such a big media mess that the IRS decided to publish a detailed report from tax control of this baker. Apparently, apart from giving food to poor, he was also running a tax avoidance scheme on half of his merchandise, stealing tons of money.
So please just keep in mind that spreading blatant lies is the basic principle news publishing nowdays.
Boy am I glad smartphones weren't a thing when I was in high school! I'd be off the wrong end of death row already - along with almost everyone in my graduating class.
How is this not rape and manufacturing child pornography (by the police)? If they intend to forcefully give him an erection and take naked pictures of him, it sure sounds like it.
My first reaction was that the absurdity level is so high, there has to be an ulterior motive for the prosecutor here, to expose how ridiculous it is to prosecute children for normal, healthy (if potentially socially risky) sexual experimentation.
So, basically, in order to protect him from himself, they are going to engage in many of the abusive behaviors child pornography laws are intended to protect children from, and then put him in jail.
So, we're all very very angry and we'll... do what about it?
Nothing.
This is hardly the first time this happens. There are about half a dozen cases of this kind in mainstream media every year. Plenty more go unreported. Nothing changes, because everyone feels comfortable being outraged talking about it, but they wouldn't touch the problem with a 20 foot pole when it comes to acting about it.
Don't get me wrong, I think it is utterly crazy that ANYONE was charged in this case. It is a victimless crime. But reading between the lines there's a certain puritanical undertone to all of it.
In most other Western countries this would not be illegal in this way. But the US is extremely religious and has quite an unhealthy attitude to teenage sex (which ironically results in one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the Western world also).
I genuinely wonder how the people who preside over cases like this (e.g. cops, prosecutor, even the judge) sleep at night. They're actually doing more harm to everyone (including society) than the supposed "crime."