Underage Consenting to Underage - legal or no?

[FoolKiller]

So I just read this story from Fox News.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323373,00.html

Cops: High School Students Traded Nude Pics of Themselves Over Cell Phones

FARMINGTON, Utah — Police are questioning a group of teenagers accused of trading nude pictures over cell phones.

Click here for more on this story from MyFOXUtah.com

Farmington Police Lt. Shane Whitaker says six or so Farmington Junior High School students took pictures of themselves and then shared the naked images.

A parent of one of the kids found the pictures on their child's cell phone and called police. Detectives say the 13- and 14-year-old boys and girls questioned said they took the pictures as a joke, but it's potentially a crime.

Police say they plan to turn the investigation over to the Davis County attorney by the end of the week to decide if charges will be filed.

Ok, so they are underage and basically they are posessing child porn. But if they are taking the pictures themselves sharing within a group and it started as some kind of joke then who is guilty of cohersion? Who committed the crime?

And then being underage themselves what would they be punished with? Community service? Juvenile delinquecy center?


To me I would be concerned as their parent, but I don't see exactly what kind of legal consequences can play out. The only thing I can see is some sort of blame coming down on the parents.


To sum up my thoughts:

Disturbing? Yes.
Expected of that age? Yes.
Illegal? No clue.

 

[Danoff]

We absolve children of the responsibility of choosing who to have sex with because we decided that they are simply not capable of making that decision until their minds have fully developed. Children are a nice difficult sliding scale of rights and responsibility. From day one, where they have minimal rights, and pretty much zero responsibility, to 18 when they have nearly a full set of rights and most responsibilities.

So an adult who takes advantage of an underage person's theoretical inability to decide matters of sex properly is guilty of a form of rape. That follows. But what about minors?

If neither party is capable making these sort of decisions and neither side is held responsible for the decisions they make, no crime has been committed. How can you have a crime without someone who is responsible for committing it? I don't think it's useful to discuss degrees of responsibility either. If a 15 year old has sex with a 14 year old, the 15 year old should bear the same amount of responsibility as if he/she had sex with a 16 year old. Same individual, same act, different responsibility? Which means none of them are responsible - hence no crime.

The exact same line of reasoning applies to photographs. if it's initiated by children and in the possession of children, I don't see how you can hold them responsible - especially given that if any one of those children were photographed by an adult it would suddenly not be their responsibility at all.

 

[Famine]

Yeah, they're in possession of child pornography and guilty of creating indecent images of children. Under whatever that US law is that appears at the bottom of every porn site ever.


There was a 12 year old kid in the UK put on the Sex Offenders' Register for download nude pictures of 12 year old girls. He was just curious about girls his own age - though it's a subtle difference in that he was downloading images of children who had been exploited and abused, whereas these kids are creating pictures of themselves.

Then again, isn't peer pressure just another form of exploitation and abuse?


There's also a grey area with some States' laws having a "within four years" rule for consent - you can consent to having sex with someone not more than four years older than you even if you're under the age of consent. This would of course beg the question that if an 18 year old can legally have sex with a 15 year old, why can he not take nude photographs of her without being a paedophile?


Edit: Scratch all that. It's Utah. Anything goes.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yeah, they're in possession of child pornography and guilty of creating indecent images of children. Under whatever that US law is that appears at the bottom of every porn site ever..

I'm assuming you can quote that by memory?

Then again, isn't peer pressure just another form of exploitation and abuse?

See, this is where I think the facts are in the details. They say it was a joke. To me this is something like one thinking it would be funny to send pictures of his/her butt to all his/her friends. An e-moon, if you will. Then others fire back with similar and someone tries to one up them with something else.

Where is the peer pressure?

Now, if as a joke they were daring each other then it is peer pressure.

This would of course beg the question that if an 18 year old can legally have sex with a 15 year old, why can he not take nude photographs of her without being a paedophile?

Best guess, because what he does with those pictures from that moment on cannot be guaranteed to be consented to first?

 

[YSSMAN]

Hmmm... Like Famine said, there are usually States who have laws like the "within four years" clause, but it isn't something that can be said of under every circumstance.

Personally speaking, the kids were just being kids, and a joke or not, it seems fairly clear that they were curious about their sexuality. Despite being a conservative on many occasions, the "sexual liberation" of our children is something I find to be important. Its important that they know about their bodies, and of course, the bodies of the opposite sex.

...That being said, where were the parents exactly? Shouldn't they know that their kids are taking pictures of each other and sending them to one another? Or was it a parent who complained to the police?

I can't fault the kiddies. This is something that should be dealt with between the parents, not with the police and lawyers...

 

[Danoff]

Best guess, because what he does with those pictures from that moment on cannot be guaranteed to be consented to first?

The moment they turn 18, they'd better delete those pictures, because at that point they're an adult in possession of child pornography. I can't see any argument though that would make it illegal for these kids to photograph themselves or even each other - while they're under 18.

 

[FoolKiller]

...That being said, where were the parents exactly? Shouldn't they know that their kids are taking pictures of each other and sending them to one another? Or was it a parent who complained to the police?

A parent complained.

 

[Rat Bastid]

No matter how close parents are with them, or despite or because of their best efforts, adolescents will still strike out on their own. It's part of the coming-of-age process. I think the parents may have over reacted by calling the police because there was no crime at all. Just curiosity & nervous excitement via the latest medium.

 

[Famine]

If neither party is capable making these sort of decisions and neither side is held responsible for the decisions they make, no crime has been committed.

I was thinking about this when it occurred to me that the age of consent isn't necessarily the same as the age of criminal responsibility.

In the UK, the age of criminal responsibility is 10 - it's not possible for a 9 year old (or younger) to be convicted of a criminal act, but once older than 10 you are held to be responsible for your own actions.


The upshot of this is that a 13 year old who takes a naked photograph of themselves isn't committing any crime at all. But the 13 year old who is in possession of a naked photograph of that first 13 year old is committing the crime of "possessing indecent images of children".

So while we say they are not mature enough to make the decision to engage in sexual relations themselves, they are still responsible for their actions.


But not in Utah, obviously. Since it's Utah.

 

[Danoff]

I was thinking about this when it occurred to me that the age of consent isn't necessarily the same as the age of criminal responsibility.

Letter of the law aside for a moment, how could it make any sense to hold someone responsible for an action that they are not legally considered old enough to consent to?

 

[Famine]

Letter of the law aside for a moment, how could it make any sense to hold someone responsible for an action that they are not legally considered old enough to consent to?

It's not the "taking photos of themselves" that they would be held responsible for. It's the "possessing photos of others".

So while they can't consent to having naked pictures taken of themselves, it's not that act that is the one for which they are held responsible.


Oddly, I can't think of a suitable analogy which isn't exactly the other way round.

 

[Danoff]

It's not the "taking photos of themselves" that they would be held responsible for. It's the "possessing photos of others".

I'm not seeing a big difference there. It's a very similar act, requiring a similar understanding by the individual. I see it as very much similar to having sex with someone under the age of consent as well. In theory, minors don't properly understand the implications of any of these things.

 

[Famine]

I'm not seeing a big difference there. It's a very similar act, requiring a similar understanding by the individual. I see it as very much similar to having sex with someone under the age of consent as well. In theory, minors don't properly understand the implications of any of these things.

It's not necessarily a big difference, but it is a difference.

The kids wouldn't being charged with violating their own rights, but with violating others' rights. If there were charged with anything.


Mind you, in the UK it takes a proper, full-on, predatory rape for a criminal charge against someone having sex with a minor.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Isn't the norm just to confess to it and get a caution, thus leading to a few years on the Sexual Offenders register?

This is all quite interesting as it wasn't unknown for a few indecent images of girls in my school/college to be bluetoothed around my DT classes. To think people could have actually been arrested and charged for it is quite scary.

 

[niky]

There's also a grey area with some States' laws having a "within four years" rule for consent - you can consent to having sex with someone not more than four years older than you even if you're under the age of consent.

Score! Oops... that message came twenty years too late...

------

Real funny, though... with sex tapes and nudie pics being the current "in-thing" for celebrities... could this underage nude ring be just the tip of an enormously huge iceberg?

 

[BayConRong]

it's prolly someway that one of them decided would be cool to hit on another girl. starting off with a guy showing his muscles then after a while a girl taking her shirt off as a joke to resemble the guy. and just escalating. it really just matters on how it started. that's how they decide degree's of murder. did you plan on killing your wife? or did she complain about the hair on the soap one too many times and you just lost it?

Note: I do not condone the murder of spouses.

 

[Rykon Zero]

With experience being 13, they were a bunch of morons. They should have been smarter, though I have never felt any of these urges to take pictures of my genitals and send them to my friends. But Thirteen year-olds are not stupid, They should have known full well what they were doing was illegal.

Note: My brother's a moron.

 

[Year.Zero]

Curiosity always prevails.

Case closed.

 

[FoolKiller]

Isn't the norm just to confess to it and get a caution, thus leading to a few years on the Sexual Offenders register?

Few years? I do believe it is life, and I am not sure that it is excused with a juvenile record the way theft and vandalism is.

This is all quite interesting as it wasn't unknown for a few indecent images of girls in my school/college to be bluetoothed around my DT classes. To think people could have actually been arrested and charged for it is quite scary.

Well, if they were college aged I would assume they are consent aged.

Real funny, though... with sex tapes and nudie pics being the current "in-thing" for celebrities... could this underage nude ring be just the tip of an enormously huge iceberg?

Maybe they can blame Paris Hilton and get away with being influenced by the media.

Note: My brother's a moron.

I worry how this applies.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Few years? I do believe it is life, and I am not sure that it is excused with a juvenile record the way theft and vandalism is.

It was in reference to the statatory rape comment by Famine. The guy always gets the tough break on it and I read only recentley that it usually comes down to them pleading guilty and getting a few years on the sex offenders register. A terrible thing when you're looking for your first job and applying to universities, both who ask for past convictions.

Well, if they were college aged I would assume they are consent aged.

School is untill 16, so the images would probably to my memory have been of a girl under the age of consent. College in the UK usually refers to education bewteen 16-18, which would mean that while the girl would have been over the age of consent it would still be deemed child pornography.

 

[Year.Zero]

I
School is untill 16, so the images would probably to my memory have been of a girl under the age of consent. College in the UK usually refers to education bewteen 16-18, which would mean that while the girl would have been over the age of consent it would still be deemed child pornography.

Didn't Daniel Radcliffe pose nude for a promo (for Equus) photo when he was 17?

 

[ExigeEvan]

Didn't Daniel Radcliffe pose nude for a promo (for Equus) photo when he was 17?

Yes, but I don't believe his crown jewels were shown in any photos. Though I do believe it he did perform naked, I'm assuming he was 18 at the time.

 

[Gashlycrumb]

Isn't this just "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours" updated for the e-generation? Naive exploration of sexuality and the differences between the sexes has been happening in school playgrounds for probably as long as there have been schools. I doubt these children really had any concept that what they were doing was wrong and it doesn't sound as though there was any specific malicious intent. I think this would be better solved by the parents involved sitting down with their children and having the "birds and bees" discussion.

 

[Keef]

So what's the verdict? Have you guys decided this is illegal? To my eyes, it's certainly indecent, but not illegal. Especially considering that none of the kids (yes, they probably aren't given the legal responsibility to decide whether they've been victimized or not ) consider themselves the victim of a crime. They all would be the plaintiff and defendant. I don't understand how a defendant can be convicted if the plaintiff believes no crime was committed. This seems like a ridiculous case of the kids' decisions being made by their parents. In order for a trial to be fair and legal in the first place, the parents would have to testify against everyone, including their own kid!

WHAT?!

 

[Year.Zero]

Yes, but I don't believe his crown jewels were shown in any photos. Though I do believe it he did perform naked, I'm assuming he was 18 at the time.

Hahaha. . . oh, his jewels were shown. They were indeed.


*ahem*

 

[ExigeEvan]

Hahaha. . . oh, his jewels were shown. They were indeed.


*ahem*

Somone obviousley has a new chat up line then....

"So, you think Dan Radcliff was blessed...."