Child Pornography Case in Fla.

[markomalley]

From CNET:

What: Teenagers taking risque photos of themselves are prosecuted for violating child pornography laws.

When: Florida state appeals court rules on January 19.

Outcome: A 2-1 majority upholds conviction on grounds the girl produced a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child.

What happened, according to court documents:

Combine unsupervised teenagers, digital cameras and e-mail, and, given sufficient time, you'll end up with risque photographs on a computer somewhere.

There's a problem with that: Technically, those images constitute child pornography. That's what 16-year-old Amber and 17-year-old Jeremy, her boyfriend, both residents of the Tallahassee, Fla., area, learned firsthand. (Court documents include only their initials, A.H. and J.G.W., so we're using these pseudonyms to make this story a little easier to read.)

On March 25, 2004, Amber and Jeremy took digital photos of themselves naked and engaged in unspecified "sexual behavior." The two sent the photos from a computer at Amber's house to Jeremy's personal e-mail address. Neither teen showed the photographs to anyone else.

Court records don't say exactly what happened next--perhaps the parents wanted to end the relationship and raised the alarm--but somehow Florida police learned about the photos.

Amber and Jeremy were arrested. Each was charged with producing, directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. Based on the contents of his e-mail account, Jeremy was charged with an extra count of possession of child pornography.

(remainder snipped)

First, I am not advocating unmarried 16 & 17 year old children having sex.

Second, I am not advocating unmarried 16 & 17 year old children photographing themselves having sex.

Third, I am not advicating unmarried 16 & 17 year old children e-mailing the above-mentioned photographs to each other.

But this is a bizarre case.

A 16 year old girl being convicted of child pornography.

A 16 year old girl being the victim of child pornography.

The same girl. The same incident.

[Abigail]

I wonder how they think prosecution will benefit or in any way help these kids or protect society.

[markomalley]

I wonder how they think prosecution will benefit or in any way help these kids or protect society.

Sort of a corrollary to the Rape thread, isn't it?

The funny thing is that this law could be applied if the couple were married...which, in the state of Florida, with parental permission, they could be...

[Abigail]

Sort of a corrollary to the Rape thread, isn't it?

The funny thing is that this law could be applied if the couple were married...which, in the state of Florida, with parental permission, they could be...

Yeah, well that is why in the rape thread I said I didn't think you could legislate a once size fits all deal - a jury needs to decide after being given ALL the information. One of the problems in our courts these days is there are so many ways to prevent all of the information from being given. Damned hard to make a sound decision when important parts of the puzzle are missing.

Also, I have a huge problem with teenages being labelled sex offenders for having consensual sex with one another. It destroys their lives, it confuses the issue in the minds of the public, and it totally minimalizes the true horror experienced by someone who really was raped.

Perhaps we would have better sentencing for rapists if we stopped calling them "sex offenders" or otherwise lumping them in with teenagers who had consensual sex with each other.

Edited February 12, 2007 by Abigail

[Jim]

Abigail,

Juvenile cases are almost always decided by a judge rather than a jury. Which sometimes makes a common sense decision impossible.

[Abigail]

Abigail,

Juvenile cases are almost always decided by a judge rather than a jury. Which sometimes makes a common sense decision impossible.

Aye, doesn't that sum it up beautifully!

[Jim]

Taking it one step further, this would be a nearly perfect case for jury nullification, a legal principle that alllows a jury to acquit defendents even though they are guilty by the letter of the law.