Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday September 05 2015, @12:10PM   Printer-friendly
from the sense-no-makes dept.

Later this month, a North Carolina high school student will appear in a state court and face five child pornography-related charges for engaging in consensual sexting with his girlfriend.

What's strange is that of the five charges he faces, four of them are for taking and possessing nude photos of himself on his own phone—the final charge is for possessing one nude photo his girlfriend took for him. There is no evidence of coercion or further distribution of the images anywhere beyond the two teenagers' phones.

Similarly, the young woman was originally charged with two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor—but was listed on her warrant for arrest as both perpetrator and victim. The case illustrates a bizarre legal quandry that has resulted in state law being far behind technology and unable to distinguish between predatory child pornography and innocent (if ill-advised) behavior of teenagers.

The boy is being charged with child pornography for taking pictures of himself.


[These teens were of the age of consent in North Carolina and could legally have had sex with each other. Juvenile court jurisdiction ends at age 16 in North Carolina, however, so they are being tried as adults on felony charges of possessing child porn... of themselves. -Ed.]

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by curunir_wolf on Saturday September 05 2015, @04:17PM

    by curunir_wolf (4772) on Saturday September 05 2015, @04:17PM (#232651)

    Jurors do not have the right to willfully ignore the law.

    Maybe not, but they still in all cases have that power.

    If the defense attorneys were allowed to play to the juries sympathies and convince them that the crime shouldn't even be a crime, it would break the legal system.

    That's an outrageous claim with absolutely no basis. Juries are not going to go around deciding that laws against murder and rape and armed robbery are unjust. But for those laws and prosecutions that are clearly unjust, like this case, the jury isn't breaking the legal system, they are fixing it. They are limiting the state's ability to unjustly prosecute citizens for normative behavior, where there are no victims. No victim, No crime! How many people are in prison today that because they were convicted of a crime where the "victim" was the state itself? They should not be there. The state has a right to prosecute crimes against citizens - the state does NOT have the right to jail its citizens by claiming to be the victim of a crime.

    The question of whether or not something ought to be legal at all is a question for the various appellate courts to consider.

    With this statement, you have broken the historical basis for not recognizing jury nullification in the US - the principle that it is the people that decide whether or not something ought to be legal. When you give that power to the courts, the only recourse for citizens is jury nullification, just like the situation in the pre-revolutionary US colonies.

    --
    I am a crackpot
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Disagree=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1, Disagree) by Francis on Saturday September 05 2015, @04:38PM

    by Francis (5544) on Saturday September 05 2015, @04:38PM (#232653)

    You don't solve abuses of power by abusing power. Jury nullification just ensures that the issue is never actually dealt with.

    It's not an outrageous claim, it's completely true. And just because some people consider a crime to be victimless, does not mean that it is victimless. The state steps in as the victim in cases where the damage is considered to be widespread. It also allows for the state to prosecute in cases where the victim is at risk of being intimidated by the defendant.

    The people do have the right to decide whether or not something ought to be illegal. You vote for people that support the things you support. In some parts of the country we even get to directly propose laws as initiatives or the legislators can send things to the public for a vote as a referendum. The jury box is completely the wrong place to be deciding whether or not something should be illegal.

    What you're proposing is tantamount to anarchy. We've had a system where jurors did that in a widespread way back in the "good" old days when it was damn near impossible to convict a white person of lynching a black person. The jurors didn't see a problem with that. If we open the door to jurors making their own decisions about what the law should be, there's no telling what they will and won't go for. I highly doubt it will be anything that dramatic in the modern era, but there's still a bunch of people out there that consider GLBT folks to be subhuman, not to mention illegal immigrants, so I wouldn't be surprised if it still happens.

    • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Saturday September 05 2015, @09:21PM

      by curunir_wolf (4772) on Saturday September 05 2015, @09:21PM (#232751)
      So your lame response comes down to calling me a racist and a homophobe? Good job, douchebag.
      --
      I am a crackpot
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @08:50PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @08:50PM (#232737)

    Nullification is the "ancient right" of the jury.

    "juries are not entitled as a matter of right to refuse to apply the law — but they do have the power to do so when their consciences permit of no other course." -- R. v. Krieger, 2006 SCC 47 (Canada)

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @04:17PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @04:17PM (#232998)
    >> Jurors do not have the right to willfully ignore the law.

    > Maybe not, but they still in all cases have that power.

    Undeniably true. I'd have approached the statement from the direction that jurors have the right to interpret the law such that the spirit and intent of the law is given precedence over its current wording.