SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Child porn law goes nuts: 14-year-old girl charged for nude selfie
A 14-year-old girl is facing charges in Minnesota juvenile courts that could lead to her being placed on a sex offender registry—all for taking a nude selfie and sending it to a boy at her school. Prosecutors say that she violated Minnesota's child pornography statute, which bans distributing sexually explicit pictures of underaged subjects. But a legal brief filed this week by the ACLU of Minnesota says that this is ridiculous. Charging a teenager for taking a nude selfie means the state is charging the supposed victim—an absurd result that the legislature can't have intended when it passed Minnesota's child pornography statute, the ACLU argues.
The case is being heard by a juvenile court in Rice County—about an hour south of the Twin Cities. Because this is juvenile court, there's a lot we don't know including the name of the teenager. We don't even know if the selfie in question was a photo or a video. What we do know comes from the ACLU's legal brief, which includes a brief description of the case. According to the ACLU, the anonymous teen sent a nude selfie to a classmate over Snapchat. The recipient apparently took a screenshot of the message and shared it with others at school without the girl's consent. One of the classmates alerted the police in Faribault, Minnesota, which is presumably where the girl goes to school.
Officials decided to charge the girl with the "felony sex offense of knowingly disseminating pornographic work involving a minor to another person." An adult convicted of this crime can face up to seven years in prison. As a 14-year-old, the girl in this case isn't facing a criminal prosecution in adult court and won't face the harsh sentence an adult might face. The problem, the ACLU notes, is that if she's found guilty she is likely to be placed on a sex offender registry, where she would face the same stigmas as someone who commits violent sex crimes. That could lead to difficulties finding a job or obtaining housing. The ACLU's brief doesn't mention whether the boy was charged for distributing the girl's photo to other classmates.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Monday January 01 2018, @01:03AM (41 children)
In this case, there is a victim. A grown prosecutor who should have better judgement is victimizing a 14 year old girl so he can put another notch in his belt. The prosecution should be deeply ashamed of itself. There is clearly no public interest in this mindless prosecution. What kind of message is being sent to uoung girls that an image of their nude body is so destructive to society that it calls for the full weight of the prosecutor's office and the courts to be brought to bear?
This is exactly the sort of thing that should be left to her parents to resolve. While we're at it, the boy's parents should be having a talk with him as well.
I can only wonder if the prosecutor does protest too much.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @01:24AM (10 children)
The girl and the boy, then commuted or otherwise cleared their sentences after making a big deal out of it, and used it to remind people, both under the age of majority, and over it, that sexting with a minor is a felony, and dissemination of child pornography, whether by a child, or by an adult is an offense punishable by the full weight of a court of law.
Using it as a stick for a bit of public corporal punishment is fine. Using it as a stick to be a living horse dead is not.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Monday January 01 2018, @01:28AM (6 children)
No, there was never a public interest in any of this. It was always a matter between the kids and their parents to resolve.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @01:32AM
A man walked up to a woman who was sitting on a park bench, watching her 9-year-old girl play. The man's appearance could only be described as 'creepy' and 'unsettling'; he was cockeyed, wore small glasses, and had a thin mustache. After staring at the woman for a few moments, the man finally spoke these words: "You know, I've been looking it, and... hehe!"
Suddenly, the man instantly changed locations and was sitting on the grass, naked. The mother's child was sitting on top of him, also naked, and with the man's penis entering her. However, something was different about the girl's appearance; she was now incredibly obese, unlike previously; she had countless crater-like indentations on her buttocks, and the skin on the inside of said craters was a sickly greenish color; and finally, the craters on her skin were slowly leaking pus and blood.
The man began thrusting, and every time he did so, he screamed, "Looking it!" These words were shouted again and again, and echoed throughout the park. Occasionally, the man would scream other phrases, such as 'Delicious!', at the same time as he was screaming other words; what was most odd was that it sounded as if he was screaming two entirely different things simultaneously, almost as if someone who sounded exactly like he did was speaking over him. The man's thrusting became increasingly rapid over time, and so too did his shouts. Finally, the man squeezed the girl's buttocks with as much strength as he could muster, and a vomit-inducing mixture of pus and blood spewed everywhere, accompanied by a high-pitched scream
Elsewhere, a naked woman - the child's mother - could be seen hanging from her rectum on the end of an abnormally-large telephone pole which reached thousands of feet tall. The woman's rectum appeared to be stretching out to unbelievable lengths, to the point where it resembled a long hood. Perhaps due to this, the woman's face resembled nothing so much as a dead fish. From this location, the man's everlasting shouts of pleasure could be heard...
(Score: 2, Disagree) by dry on Monday January 01 2018, @04:39AM (4 children)
Well the problem is when these pictures escape without the consent of those who took/had taken the pictures, and that is all the public interest.
Now to use child pornography laws about this is insane, but these kids do need to know that sharing pictures does mean a chance of the pictures not being private, and what do you do if the parents aren't explaining this to the kids?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Monday January 01 2018, @04:50AM (3 children)
Prosecution is not in the public interest. No good will come of it.
As for the rest, I'm guessing the kids have worked that out by now.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday January 01 2018, @09:49AM (2 children)
Is that the standard by which prosecution is judged?
Deterrence is still an acknowledge goal of criminal prosecution.
We use to pretend that "correction" was the aim. but no sentient person actually believes that any more.
And if that is your standard, on what do you base your blanket assertion?
In a lot of high schools in a lot of places kids (especially girls) are bullied into nude pictures, often with the claim that "everybody is doing it". Even the kids that don't want to participate get hounded into it. The ACLU's assertion that the child is coercing herself is intentional and obtusely willful ignorance of how this stuff gets started.
This isn't the end of the world. There's no point in pretending it is.
Juvenile records can and are expunged every day, often for worse crimes than this.
There's also no reason to assume the worst possible intent on the part of the prosecutor. It might have been worth your time to actually read the (pretty thin) coverage at ARS where it was stated: Because this is juvenile court, there's a lot we don't know including the name of the teenager. We don't even know if the selfie in question was a photo or a video. But apparently there being a "lot that they don't know" is just a come on for sensational journalism these days. Combine that with the ACLU trying the case in the press instead the courtroom and you have a perfect store of fake news and SJW fodder.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday January 01 2018, @10:36AM
So why would further legal consequences added to whatever she has already suffered be in the public interest? Revenge? For what? She is apparently the victim of her "crime". Will she feel better about it knowing she will suffer further punishment? Reform? How so? What will she learn that she hasn't already learned more thoroughly?
The prosecutor is aiming to punish a minor for self victimization over an all too common youthful indiscretion. There is no positive spin to put on that.
Of course we don't know the exact details, you didn't expect them to publish the selfie, did you? And we're never supposed to know the name of a juvenile defendant.
Funny how suddenly you want the government to spend tax dollars to be mommy and daddy and do "something" about "the problem"! You seem to be opposed to that when it might help someone.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday January 01 2018, @01:57PM
The safe approach is to not have a juvenile record in the first place. "Can be" is not "will be".
But that is where to put the smart money. This should have never seen a court room.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @01:40AM
(Score: 4, Informative) by noneof_theabove on Monday January 01 2018, @01:44PM (1 child)
There is no such thing called "expunge the records".
My brother-in-law several years ago had to get a lawyer to fight his employer [city]
because they found he was charged 35 years earlier, as a 17 year old, of possession &
consumption of alcohol by a minor.
Judge sealed the case and said that when he turned 21 [legal age for most popular drug]
his record would be expunged.
WRONG !
In this day and age Nothing, NOTHING is ever removed.
Like the internet has the the "way back machine archive", once you are charged
the record is forever saved in the "legal archives".
Something like DADT [don't ask, don't tell] it will not be "just distributed" but
should anyone go looking they will find it, and it is not difficult.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 02 2018, @01:27AM
I think that you err, but only in detail. I believe that the *court records* may be sealed, and expunged, but the POLICE RECORDS are completely separate, and never expunged. So, no matter how thoroughly the judicial branch may expunge their records, there remains an executive branch arrest record. Judicial says, "We have no records of John Doe being convicted of anything" so whoever was inquiring just goes to the police department to ask about John Doe.
Depending on department policy, the police can at the least state that they arrested John on such and such a date for possession, or whatever. They may also have recorded the final disposition of the case, that is, convicted, acquitted, or whatever.
Note that I have not said that you're wrong, but that I said that I THINK you have made a mistake. IANAL, of course, and I am only repeating what I have been told. You may or may not wish to research further.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by krishnoid on Monday January 01 2018, @01:40AM (2 children)
Or, as a matter of mass protest ...
(Score: 2) by pipedwho on Monday January 01 2018, @11:08PM
Mass debate?
(Score: 2) by ilsa on Tuesday January 02 2018, @11:04PM
And a twitter flamewar! Can't forget that!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tftp on Monday January 01 2018, @01:53AM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by stormreaver on Monday January 01 2018, @01:58AM (8 children)
I wish I could mod you with, "+9999999999999, How The Hell Could Something So Damn Stupid Ever Happen?!"
You hit the nail on the head. In my opinion, the charges should be dropped; the prosecutor should be fired, disbarred, and prohibited from ever practicing law again. The State should pay this girl several million taxpayer dollars for the pain and suffering they have inflicted upon her; and then everyone who voted yes to pass this assinine law should be impeached, tried, convicted, removed from office, and never again allowed to hold anything other than a burger flipping job anywhere in the known universe.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by TheReaperD on Monday January 01 2018, @05:10AM (6 children)
Well, as far as the law, I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time. Since it was passed long before the age of the selfie, possibly even before the age of the polaroid, the only way images of naked childeren were taken was if a 3rd party was involved and almost always with sinister intentions. So, at the time, the one creating the work was always someone else, not the child being photographed so it made sense to prosecute them as a child pornographer. The problem now is this law is being used by prosecutors, such as this, to target teenage girls who are taking their own pictures and sending them of their own free will. It makes me wonder if the prosecutor is doing it just so he can legally view images of underage girls without worry of being prosecuted or being called a pervert.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 3, Insightful) by anubi on Monday January 01 2018, @06:18AM (3 children)
We have a lot of law that takes a modicum of common sense to discern between the letter of the law and the intent of the law.
In this case, those entrusted to judicate the law are demonstrating a complete lack of judgement. I have never seen it get worse than this.
These folks have no business having the kind of power that has been delegated to them.
Anyway, that's my two cent's worth.
I am extremely happy though to see I will be posting a redundant post, as other people have already posted that they also found this whole sordid affair just as asinine as I do. And I agree completely with the S/N community on this.
But I remain puzzled as to why a bunch of S/N nerds like us show such advances in human compassion and judgement over those supposedly trained in the art of judiciary process?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @10:51AM (1 child)
> I have never seen it get worse than this.
Hoo boy. You have lived a sheltered life... This is only the most recent in the very, very long line [techdirt.com] of such cases, and some of them were so much worse. [techdirt.com]
> But I remain puzzled as to why a bunch of S/N nerds like us show such advances in human compassion and judgement over those supposedly trained in the art of judiciary process?
There is a critical difference: we have no power, they do. Power corrupts, etc.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Monday January 01 2018, @12:37PM
Maybe I have been sheltered.... to be honest, I really haven't been following this.
Had it not been for the S/N story, I would have remained ignorant.
I'll just say it was a real eye-opener for me. I knew our legal systems have become quite corrupt, but I had no idea they would actually do something like this.
I have no idea how to fight something like this. I am just disgusted and want to go back to laying out PCB.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by TheReaperD on Monday January 08 2018, @05:04PM
Simple. Because we have nothing to gain or loose in our comments. Prosecutors get bonuses and promotions based on there win/loss numbers and though despicable, this is an easy "win." It gets even worse when the prosecutor has political ambitions because no one has ever lost on the "hard on crime" mantra and cases like this are easy to depict in the media as being the necessary bad guy to prevent her from ever going down the road of a life of immorality (bullshit; but easy to sell to a gullible public).
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @04:44PM (1 child)
Oh, please. "Minor" does not mean "kindergartener unable to operate anything more complex than a polaroid" -- FFS, this very case is about a 14-year-old. If you don't think teenagers (and younger) have dabbled in photography almost from its introduction, including developing their own film or plates, your stupendous ignorance is part of the problem -- this myth of juvenile uselessness fuels those who want to treat minors like infants until they turn eighteen, and then expect them to instantly adapt to the adulthood they've been insulated from.
Regardless, they definitely had polaroids in 1977. Not sure if you have no clue when we started criminalizing child porn, or have no clue about the history of instant cameras, but either way, would it kill you to google first, instead of rubbing your ignorance in everyone's face?
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday January 01 2018, @06:39PM
In the 70s, the Polaroids weren't the main lack. It was the inability to copy, transmit and store photos cheaply-- no Internet, no smart phones with digital cameras, no gigabyte hard drives, flash drives and SD cards-- that kept the lid on this.
(Score: 1, Troll) by frojack on Monday January 01 2018, @09:53AM
Say, son, why don't you leave the matter of laws and prosecution to the adults.
Run along now, and play with your little cell phone.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @02:12AM (4 children)
Sometimes prosecutors take stupid cases precisely to make a point, hoping to get the stupid laws behind the cases modified by judicial practice (such as declaring something unconstitutional) or by creating such outrage that legislators will change them.
Prosecutors have even been known to effectively take a dive on such cases, effectively telling the judge: "I'm doing my job, but this is really stupid."
So I'm not going to condemn the prosecutor without knowing more about this.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Monday January 01 2018, @02:25AM (2 children)
Using an embarrassed 14 year old girl as a pawn in a dirty political game is unconscionable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @03:24AM (1 child)
Good. Help the prosecutor make that case to the judge and legislators.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday January 01 2018, @05:52AM
The judge is irrelevant if the prosecutor refuses to prosecute as he should. It's up to him to complain loudly to the legislature. It may not carry legal weight buty it would surely carry political weight.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 01 2018, @04:23AM
Disagree. It seems that prosecutors are political animals. As near as I can tell, lawyers, prosecutors, and politicians care little for justice. They only care about their careers. When you find that rare beast, a lawyer who really cares about justice, it seems that the system just beats them into conformity. This prosecutor is a piece of filth, floating in a tank of filth.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @02:17AM (7 children)
I personally think that the prosecutor did the right thing assuming he interpreted the law correctly (I don't know the motives, so I can't say for the right or wrong reason).
I believe that when the law is wrong, it should be changed instead of not enforced. If we enforce the laws as written, then we incentivise fixing them while removing the ability for selective enforcement.
This case should get escalated high enough for the relevant lay to be to either be thrown out as unconstitutional or, decided to mean something different (and that case will serve as precedence for future ones) or there will be a clear decision that the law is both legal and actually means that we are supposed to commit this atrocity. Should the law and ruling stand, then we clearly will have to pass a new lay and pardon the victim (either categorically in the new lay or specifically: I prefer categorically as there are likely other victims)
The only time I think the judicial system (including the Jury (via jury nullification)) should not follow the law is then the harm done by following the law will be incurred irrevocable before the law could be possibly fixed (for example intimidate execution). This does not appear to the the case here.
To put this in software terms, when you find a bug, do you tweak the running state of the application to make it not die (maybe edit the memory a bit) or do you go fix the source code and rerun the app? The answer depends on the level of harm done by the crash, but in almost all the cases you fix the source code (aka the policy/law) not the particular instance of execution.
An obvious example of this is the issue of marijuana. Then the president of the US says he is not going to perform his sworn duty and execute the federal law regarding schedule 1 substances in the case of marijuana, thats an impeachable offence. Enforce the freaking law. if its horrible, then fix it, but don't ignore the law, that makes a huge mess (and now research on marijuana is very hard to fun and perform, the businesses are often stuck using cash etc).
Anyway, I never liked the way the child porn laws are setup. By sending that message, she turned the boy into a felon for possession of illegal information. Thats kinds stupid, but it turns out he is a jerk anyway (but probably should not be a sex offender and a felon).
In cases where someone is truly a victim to create the child porn (sexual exploitation of children), possession and distribution of photographic evidence of the crime is illegal (and that by far the most likely evidence to make it out to the general public). While it wouldn't protect the public from the realities of exploited children very well (which is what the current law is structured to do) I think we would be much better off where we made possession of it legal, but banned selling (or other wise profiting) of such imagery, denied it copyright protection, and required anyone when asked by an investigator to provide the source they got it from. This would make it very easy and legal for anyone who wanted to forward any evidence to law enforcement to help them track down the real criminals and protect the children.
If all that was illegal here was the sexual exploitation of people (children or otherwise), then perhaps the only guilty party is the boy who show distributed the imagery: that would come down to interpretation and weather he really exploited his privileged position as a trusted partner or not. He clearly did not have the proper forms from the model to perform this as such permission can not be legally obtained from a minor, but there are some other complexities around what is legal private use. There is also of course the question of if the image was actually pornographic and not just nude: given the situation its likely ok to guess it was intended sexually, but before any charges are involved that might need to be resolved.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Monday January 01 2018, @02:30AM (6 children)
Prosecution itself is a harm. An adult that would use a child as a pawn in such a game should be horse whipped as a child abuser. The law should certainly be changed, but not at the expense of the girl's future psychological well being. Let the prosecutor loudly refuse to prosecute and dare the legislature to say otherwise. That is, let the grown up be the grown up. Hiding behind a 14 year old girl is shameful.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @03:29AM (5 children)
Yes, so we should stop passing sinful laws all the time, and actively go fix them. Until then, we officially decided we like being horrible people by a fair legal process. We are a democracy, (just like Nazi Germany was). Perhaps we should vote in less shitty law makers, and/or vote in a better system under which to vote in less shitty law makers. Occasionally having someone claiming justice stand against the enforcement of the law is vigilantism. This is almost always a bad thing.
Our legal process is setup such that judicial change requires a trial case. If that process is too horrible (or stupid: I think its stupid), then we should review the insane way our courts work, and should have done that 200 years ago. The people want their existing (broken?) system, so they should have it. If they want to build in some kindness they should elect people to write it into the laws.
I freaking hate common law, and this case is an example of what it does to people when combined with our stupid legal code. I don't think this problem is one where the Prosecution should go against the will and law of the land though.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 01 2018, @04:41AM (3 children)
You seem to have a clear cut, black and white view of the world. On or off, up or down, nothing in between. How about the concept of unintended consequences?
There was a time, when it was impossible to circulate images widely. Then, it became possible, if one were to go to a lot of trouble - that is, paying scribes to copy those images, or text. Then the printing press came along. Then photography. Moving pictures. Then 8mm home films. Still, at that time, it required more money and effort than the typical youth could invest to make images of naked youth. At that point in time, a bit of youthful nudity might be captured by loving parents, but the nudity was incidental to some other theme. Child pornography still wasn't a thing. It may have been conceived at this point in time, but it still wasn't a thing. The original child pornography laws were probably being written at this time. No one could have dreamed that in several decades, children would have the ability to take nude pics, and post them on the web, for the entire world to view.
Today, a child being silly and irresponsible can come to the attention of prosecutors around the world. Snap a pic, send it to a friend, and become the focus of investigations by police worldwide.
No, you simply do NOT use the law like it is being used here. Destroy a kid's reputation, employment and maybe educational future, possibly his/her entire life, because lawmakers a century ago couldn't envision today's technology. Law does not take precedence over morality.
Young girls have always showed a little flesh to young boys, since prehistory. And, boys have always sought to see more flesh. It's natural. So, today, they are doing it electronically? Big deal.
Update the laws? I like the idea. But only lowlife bastards are willing to sacrifice young virgins to their gods of law to get those updates. It takes little effort to destroy a little girl's life, using the law as a club. I say we make the extra effort to destroy prosecutor's lives. Let's club them with the law. Child endangerment laws sound about right. Prosecutors feel no guilt when they have beaten a kid into such dejection that suicide seems the only way out. Child endangerment. Let's get on that, alright?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @05:33AM (2 children)
Lot of talk. Who is going to be the one to enforce that? Who will be willing to hurt or kill the prosecutors who are untouchable by law?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 01 2018, @09:05AM (1 child)
I suppose a first step might consist of getting an attorney general involved?
Attorney.General@ag.state.mn.us
Ms. Swanson,
There are some outdated laws on the books, in Minnesota, and nationwide, that are being misused to harm children. One such example seems to be working it's way through the courts right now. Please refer to this legal brief filed by the ACLU regarding a 14 year old child, charged with child pornography - https://www.aclu-mn.org/sites/default/files/court_brief.pdf [aclu-mn.org]
It is my opinion that the prosecutor and other officers involved with the prosecution should be charged with child endangerment, and similar laws, designed to protect children.
You may wish to refer to a discussion in which I am participating, regarding this case - https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=17/12/31/1217219 [soylentnews.org]
No member of this discussion is a legal professional. Which, may be a good thing. Some of us may have a perspective that legal professionals will never have, without some prompting.
It is my position that it is natural for post-puberty youth to explore their sexuality. Young women have been showing flesh to young men since before recorded history. And, young men have responded in ways those young women have appreciated.
Nothing has changed in this electronic age of information. Young women want the attention of young men, so they show some flesh. The only thing that has changed is, that those images of flesh can be mass produced, and circulated to people that the young women never intended.
No "crime" was committed in this case, until the prosecutor filed a case which could put this young woman in prison, and destroy her life.
The endangerment here, is that the young woman could be beaten down by the prosecuting bully, until she feels her life is destroyed, then commits suicide. We have seen a number of cases in the past decade, where prosecutors have pushed things so far beyond reason, that their victims finally suicide.
The prosecutor has no concern for this young woman's health and welfare. Instead, he is USING her as a tool, to advance his career.
Please, intercede on this Jane Doe's behalf, in whatever capacity is possible. I urge you to take all reasonable actions, up to, and including, charging the prosecutor with child endangerment. His actions are equivalent to human trafficking - that is, he doesn't care about any consequences of his actions for the child involved.
Thank you,
name redacted
___________________________________________
Fortunately, perhaps, that the AG in question is a rather young looking female. And, if I may, I will observe that she looks attractive in her official photo. That may work to the endangered child's benefit.
If you have a better idea, please suggest!!
And, if you are able to come up with a better letter, please send it to Ms Swanson at the address above!! Maybe send it to some federal AG? Let me look into that . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @10:04AM
Indecent exposure of the "justice" system to minors. Might scar them for life... Especially the girl who is getting prosecuted for distributing child porn.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday January 01 2018, @04:48AM
Actually, prosecutorial discretion is a legal thing here in the U.S. The prosecutor is free to decline to prosecute any case whatsoever if he feels it's not in the public interest.
He is also free to LOUDLY refuse to prosecute.
As a side note, I never voted for any of the legislators who passed such a stupid law (nor did I have standing to vote for their opponents, I don't live there).
I would certainly support a non-prosecution judicial review procedure to eliminate bad laws.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday January 01 2018, @11:37AM
> There is clearly no public interest in this mindless prosecution
exactly, the interest is private, of the pedo lobby:
1. criminalize non-pedo acts like girl sending nudie to boy.
2. wait till enough people thinks "enough"
3. mount media campaign for a new sexual liberation
4. together with rectifying non-pedo acts the campaign advocates decriminalizing pedo acts
5. law passes because "the people wants it"
profit.
The hood wearing superiors of this prosecutor are very happy about his performance i guess. Raise comin' up.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Monday January 01 2018, @02:50PM (2 children)
Something tells me that prosecutor are not actually given the legal or moral ability to decide what is a crime and who is a criminal or not. We only provisionally give some of that power to juries and judges in open court, I highly doubt that prosecutors have the power to decide that behind close doors.
(Score: 5, Informative) by sjames on Monday January 01 2018, @06:10PM
It's called prosecutorial discretion. It is the legal and moral right to decide that a particular prosecution would not be in the public interest.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 02 2018, @01:39AM
The very short version - https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-discretion/ [uslegal.com]
The four paragraph version - http://law.jrank.org/pages/1870/Prosecution-Prosecutorial-Discretion.html [jrank.org]
Please read that second link. The portion that I have quoted is probably most relevant, but reading the entire article will put it properly into perspective.