SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday September 05 2015, @05:59PM
Both sides get to screen the jury.
And Both sides have limited numbers of challenges (rejections) of potential jurors.
The questions are there to detect and exclude people who have a grudge against the government, or the defendant.
That has nothing at all to do with Jury nullification, where the jury decides by itself that the whole proceeding is unjust even if
it can be shown that a specific act was against the law. Many juries have nullified upon hearing the evidence without any
preconceived notion of nullification.
Not saying this case needs jury nullification.
The whole fiction of trying them as an adult for pictures of themselves where they are said to be children is sufficient for any jury to find them not guilty, because they can not be both adults under the law and children under the law. The prosecutor has a tough road to hoe, and simply deciding the state did not prove they were children would be sufficient.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.