Joliet, IL teens charged with child pornography (1 Viewer)

[RedmondLonghorn]

A naked selfie of a teen taken by that teen is a crime. Would they be arrested and punished by the court (and to what extent) seems to be the debate here. There seems to be people posting here with conflicting experience.

There shouldn't be a law that allows that kind of question to even cross the desk of a DA/prosecutor.

But there is such a law. Quite a few of them. In every single state in the Union.

I am aware that there are. If there weren't there would be no news story and no thread here.

 

[Bucky86]

Some weirdos in here.

Tennessee is owning some fools too.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

But how do you define publishing child pornography other than, you know, publishing child pornography? I mean, isn't that EXACTLY what they did? I get that it may feel like an odd result, but they literally published a video of children engaged in explicit sex on the Internet.

What do you think the purpose of the prohibition of child pornograpghy is?

To prevent the proliferation of recorded images of underage sex acts?

That is certainly one of its purposes. What is the core moral, ethical and public policy reason for that being important though?

That proliferation of recorded images of underage sex acts turns underage children into societal sexual objects with an inability to control the long-term consequences of their underage sexual experimentation because, for instance, people on the internet have copies of a video of them having sex?

You appear to be going out of your way to avoid saying "protecting children from exploitation". I am not sure why.

I have two teen sons and a tween daughter. I certainly hope they would have enough common sense not to do any of these things. But if one of them was dumb enough to snap an R- or X-rated photo and send it to somebody online, or, God forbid, participate in something as unfortunate as what these teens did, I would like to think preventing the local prosecutor from ruining their lives wouldn't be the foremost of my worries.

Apparently, it might be. And apparently at least some people are just fine with that.

Are you arguing for changing the law as written, or more Prosecutorial Discretion in applying it?

I would argue for changing the law as written.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

But how do you define publishing child pornography other than, you know, publishing child pornography? I mean, isn't that EXACTLY what they did? I get that it may feel like an odd result, but they literally published a video of children engaged in explicit sex on the Internet.

What do you think the purpose of the prohibition of child pornograpghy is?

To prevent the proliferation of recorded images of underage sex acts?

That is certainly one of its purposes. What is the core moral, ethical and public policy reason for that being important though?

That proliferation of recorded images of underage sex acts turns underage children into societal sexual objects with an inability to control the long-term consequences of their underage sexual experimentation because, for instance, people on the internet have copies of a video of them having sex?

You appear to be going out of your way to avoid saying "protecting children from exploitation". I am not sure why.

I have two teen sons and a tween daughter. I certainly hope they would have enough common sense not to do any of these things. But if one of them was dumb enough to snap an R- or X-rated photo and send it to somebody online, or, God forbid, participate in something as unfortunate as what these teens did, I would like to think preventing the local prosecutor from ruining their lives wouldn't be the foremost of my worries.

Apparently, it might be. And apparently at least some people are just fine with that.

Are you arguing for changing the law as written, or more Prosecutorial Discretion in applying it?

I would argue for changing the law as written.

To what? Do you even know what the law is as written?

 

[Mookie]

They've been charged with a serious offense and rightly so. Once published, that video can quickly be disseminated to all sorts of pervs and whackos. Because there is no apparent evidence that anyone was being exploited or taken advantage of, they will probably be offered a plea deal where they plead guilty to a lesser offense in exchange for a relatively light sentence. Message sent, but nobody's life is getting ruined.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

I took naked pictures of a high school girlfriend. I'm glad nobody found them and charged me with child porn. The thought never crossed my mind that it was child porn. I thought that was for old guys. It's even crazier that it is child porn if a 16 year old takes a nude picture of themself.

I think it's the publishing part that's at issue here.

Under these laws it is conceivable that a minor could be charged with possession of child pornography for having pictures on a phone or something, even if the pics were of his/her self.

I took naked pictures of a high school girlfriend. I'm glad nobody found them and charged me with child porn. The thought never crossed my mind that it was child porn. I thought that was for old guys. It's even crazier that it is child porn if a 16 year old takes a nude picture of themself.

I think it's the publishing part that's at issue here.

A few years ago two Florida teens, boyfriend and girlfriend, were charged with distributing child pornography after texting naked pictures of themselves to each other. They got found guilty and their appeals were denied by the Florida Supreme Court. I don't know if the case moved any higher than that.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

I took naked pictures of a high school girlfriend. I'm glad nobody found them and charged me with child porn. The thought never crossed my mind that it was child porn. I thought that was for old guys. It's even crazier that it is child porn if a 16 year old takes a nude picture of themself.

I think it's the publishing part that's at issue here.

Under these laws it is conceivable that a minor could be charged with possession of child pornography for having pictures on a phone or something, even if the pics were of his/her self.

I took naked pictures of a high school girlfriend. I'm glad nobody found them and charged me with child porn. The thought never crossed my mind that it was child porn. I thought that was for old guys. It's even crazier that it is child porn if a 16 year old takes a nude picture of themself.

I think it's the publishing part that's at issue here.

A few years ago two Florida teens, boyfriend and girlfriend, were charged with distributing child pornography after texting naked pictures of themselves to each other. They got found guilty and their appeals were denied by the Florida Supreme Court. I don't know if the case moved any higher than that.

Here's the FL S. Ct. decision:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.lawyers/2hrgDzzkMcY

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Obviously these kids won't be required to register as sex offenders or go to jail. Sounds like they got to spend the night in a juvenile detention facility, but in my experience that's usually because that's what the parents want to happen more than anything else.

It may be "obvious" to you, but it isn't to county prosecutor's office:

Link

A 15-year-old girl and three boys, ages 14, 15 and 16, appeared in juvenile court Monday and were remanded to juvenile custody, said Charles Pelkie, spokesman for the Will County state's attorney's office. The teens, all students at Joliet Central High School, will remain in custody until a hearing on April 13, Pelkie said.

The teens face a sentencing range of probation to confinement in the juvenile justice system until the age of 21 if convicted of the charge, which is a Class X felony. The teens also face the possibility of having to register as sex offenders, Pelkie said.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Obviously these kids won't be required to register as sex offenders or go to jail. Sounds like they got to spend the night in a juvenile detention facility, but in my experience that's usually because that's what the parents want to happen more than anything else.

It may be "obvious" to you, but it isn't to county prosecutor's office:

Link

A 15-year-old girl and three boys, ages 14, 15 and 16, appeared in juvenile court Monday and were remanded to juvenile custody, said Charles Pelkie, spokesman for the Will County state's attorney's office. The teens, all students at Joliet Central High School, will remain in custody until a hearing on April 13, Pelkie said.

The teens face a sentencing range of probation to confinement in the juvenile justice system until the age of 21 if convicted of the charge, which is a Class X felony. The teens also face the possibility of having to register as sex offenders, Pelkie said.

Forgive me for not using big fonts in my response.

Assuming Illinois requires registration for all juvenile offenders, even for non-violent acts, they are in the distinct minority and are on dubious legal footing. The federal act that spawned registering juveniles requires registration (Adam Walsh Act) applies to minors thusly:

The term ‘‘convicted’’ or a variant thereof, used with respect to a sex offense, includes adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile for that offense, but only if the offender is 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense and the offense adjudicated was comparable to or more severe than aggravated sexual abuse (as described in section 2241 of title 18, United States Code), or was an attempt or conspiracy to commit such an offense.

So, basically, the minor has to commit aggravated sexual abuse or worse to be required to register.

If Illinois requires some sort of carte blanche registration system for all delinquent juveniles for any offense that would require adult registration, that's crazy. I wonder how often judges make that finding knowing that's the outcome? At the end of the day, these kids are probably going to get a pre-trial diversion unless they have checkered pasts with the juvenile system. Regardless, that registration requirement (if that's what it is) is absurd.

The flaw in Illinois, if true, is the registration requirement not the underlying law criminalizing possession of child pornography. The criminal statutes apply directly to adults. We aren't going to allow any adults to have child pornography. Minors can't violate those criminal statutes either, but they aren't "convicted" of those crimes, they're found to be "delinquent", which in and of itself isn't particularly a huge deal long-term for any kid. Requiring registration for everyone is just ridiculous and I'm 100% on board with "changing that law as written". I'll even re-write it myself for free.

But we're talking about "punishment", not the "bad act". These kids possessed child pornography and threw it up on Twitter. That's criminal behavior any way you slice it. But as was noted above, these kids often don't know that they're breaking the law, which is part of the point of not convicting kids of crimes. Adults are presumed to know they law. Kids aren't. We don't punish kids like adults for bad acts, there are serious constitutional concerns if you even try. Apparently Illinois is trying if what you're saying is accurate.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Obviously these kids won't be required to register as sex offenders or go to jail. Sounds like they got to spend the night in a juvenile detention facility, but in my experience that's usually because that's what the parents want to happen more than anything else.

It may be "obvious" to you, but it isn't to county prosecutor's office:

Link

A 15-year-old girl and three boys, ages 14, 15 and 16, appeared in juvenile court Monday and were remanded to juvenile custody, said Charles Pelkie, spokesman for the Will County state's attorney's office. The teens, all students at Joliet Central High School, will remain in custody until a hearing on April 13, Pelkie said.

The teens face a sentencing range of probation to confinement in the juvenile justice system until the age of 21 if convicted of the charge, which is a Class X felony. The teens also face the possibility of having to register as sex offenders, Pelkie said.

Forgive me for not using big fonts in my response.

Assuming Illinois requires registration for all juvenile offenders, even for non-violent acts, they are in the distinct minority and are on dubious legal footing. The federal act that spawned registering juveniles requires registration (Adam Walsh Act) applies to minors thusly:

The term ‘‘convicted’’ or a variant thereof, used with respect to a sex offense, includes adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile for that offense, but only if the offender is 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense and the offense adjudicated was comparable to or more severe than aggravated sexual abuse (as described in section 2241 of title 18, United States Code), or was an attempt or conspiracy to commit such an offense.

So, basically, the minor has to commit aggravated sexual abuse or worse to be required to register.

If Illinois requires some sort of carte blanche registration system for all delinquent juveniles for any offense that would require adult registration, that's crazy. I wonder how often judges make that finding knowing that's the outcome? At the end of the day, these kids are probably going to get a pre-trial diversion unless they have checkered pasts with the juvenile system. Regardless, that registration requirement (if that's what it is) is absurd.

The flaw in Illinois, if true, is the registration requirement not the underlying law criminalizing possession of child pornography. The criminal statutes apply directly to adults. We aren't going to allow any adults to have child pornography. Minors can't violate those criminal statutes either, but they aren't "convicted" of those crimes, they're found to be "delinquent", which in and of itself isn't particularly a huge deal long-term for any kid. Requiring registration for everyone is just ridiculous and I'm 100% on board with "changing that law as written". I'll even re-write it myself for free.

But we're talking about "punishment", not the "bad act". These kids possessed child pornography and threw it up on Twitter. That's criminal behavior any way you slice it. But as was noted above, these kids often don't know that they're breaking the law, which is part of the point of not convicting kids of crimes. Adults are presumed to know they law. Kids aren't. We don't punish kids like adults for bad acts, there are serious constitutional concerns if you even try. Apparently Illinois is trying if what you're saying is accurate.

And thus the reason for my original post. It sounds outrageous. And it isn't what I am saying, it is what the spokesperson for the county prosecutor's office is saying, as quoted by the Chicago Tribune.

at the snark about the fonts. I struggled with getting the quotes I snipped out of the article to look right. I guess when you run out of dumb strawmen beat up on and your assumptions turn out to be false, you can always attack the editing of a post.

 

[ghostguy123]

There should be punishment, but it HAS to pretty much be a case by case basis. There are so many variables at play.

Good luck legislating this.

This already happens with tons of other types of crimes anyway due to plea deals and depending on who the prosecuter and judge are.

It happens even more with kids

 

[ghostguy123]

There should be punishment, but it HAS to pretty much be a case by case basis. There are so many variables at play.

I will just say it should take quite a ridiculous scenario for me to be ok with a minor having their life ruined for this.

I will say this though, whether you believe it or not, many of these kids have no idea what they are doing is a crime in any way. Call it an excuse or whatever, but its the truth.

Why would they know? Nobody teaches this stuff.

The idea of making an example of them is ridiculously flawed. Are any other kids out there, other than at their school, even going to hear about this?

Punish sure. Ruin lives??? Yuck. Not unless the crime goes beyond the media aspect of it.

But you'll agree with me that these kids' lives aren't going to be "ruined" over this, right? I mean, it'll be a pain in their ### while they do the community service/attend class/whatever that the juvenile judge makes them do, but it's not going to stick with them forever. Hell, it's probably diverted pre-trial if they do the community service.

Being registered as a sex offender is a rather damning thing to have on your resume. Not to mention people you associate with forever might look at that a little skewed. Just a little.

 

[ghostguy123]

Also nothing worse than when some 16 your old scorned female gets a hold of her ex BF's cell phone, takes naked pics of herself, and sends them to every social media outlet imaginable. Worse than a fake rape claim.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

There should be punishment, but it HAS to pretty much be a case by case basis. There are so many variables at play.

I will just say it should take quite a ridiculous scenario for me to be ok with a minor having their life ruined for this.

I will say this though, whether you believe it or not, many of these kids have no idea what they are doing is a crime in any way. Call it an excuse or whatever, but its the truth.

Why would they know? Nobody teaches this stuff.

The idea of making an example of them is ridiculously flawed. Are any other kids out there, other than at their school, even going to hear about this?

Punish sure. Ruin lives??? Yuck. Not unless the crime goes beyond the media aspect of it.

But you'll agree with me that these kids' lives aren't going to be "ruined" over this, right? I mean, it'll be a pain in their ### while they do the community service/attend class/whatever that the juvenile judge makes them do, but it's not going to stick with them forever. Hell, it's probably diverted pre-trial if they do the community service.

Being registered as a sex offender is a rather damning thing to have on your resume. Not to mention people you associate with forever might look at that a little skewed. Just a little.

It never dawned on me that states would take Adam Walsh Act requirements and expand registering like that. Tennessee is about as conservative as it gets, and we just run with the obligations and nothing more. Our AG had to write a formal opinion on the constitutionality of just those requirements, and it drew a fair amount of criticism. We have some hardcore law-and-order types running the show and not even they would go that far on registering.

All that said, surely this is just a diversion though. We'll never know unless the kids or parents make it public. I bet there's at least 1 organization willing to bankroll a fight on that statute with the right case. Publishing the video on Twitter was bad though. Really bad. That might be what dooms them. Sounds like it was the only reason they were charged.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Also nothing worse than when some 16 your old scorned female gets a hold of her ex BF's cell phone, takes naked pics of herself, and sends them to every social media outlet imaginable. Worse than a fake rape claim.

So we allow a scorned ex BF to send naked pics of his ex because she might do it to set him up?

That's a fact question, not a legal question.

 

[Christo]

But how do you define publishing child pornography other than, you know, publishing child pornography? I mean, isn't that EXACTLY what they did? I get that it may feel like an odd result, but they literally published a video of children engaged in explicit sex on the Internet.

What do you think the purpose of the prohibition of child pornograpghy is?

To prohibit child pornography. Is it OK for some pedophile to get his rocks off to 2 kids having sex if the 2 kids are cool with it? The answer to that is "no" in all 50 states and the territories. How about if a 35 year old has sex with a 16 year old who is cool with it? Again, "no".

Minors were filmed having sex -- the having sex part isn't why they've been charged. They filmed it. A problem, but perhaps not the end of the world.

And then they published it. And there's the big problem.

We don't carve out "the kids were cool with it" exceptions to child pornography -- possessing a video of 2 kids having sex is a crime whether the kids wanted to do it or not. Publishing that video is a more serious crime whether the kids wanted to do it or not.

 

[ghostguy123]

. Publishing the video on Twitter was bad though. Really bad. That might be what dooms them. Sounds like it was the only reason they were charged.

Of course it was bad. Of course they need to be punished. But this is NOT one of those crimes where a kid needs to face punishment FOREVER!!!

They didn't rape people and post it online. They didnt beat the snot out of an old lady and basically kill her for money.

The CRIME was clicking a button to let people see the LEGAL activities they participated in. It is bad, real bad, and real stupid................but a major life altering punishment is NOT the solution to that.

 

[ghostguy123]

Also nothing worse than when some 16 your old scorned female gets a hold of her ex BF's cell phone, takes naked pics of herself, and sends them to every social media outlet imaginable. Worse than a fake rape claim.

So we allow a scorned ex BF to send naked pics of his ex because she might do it to set him up?

That's a fact question, not a legal question.

Let?? No. Punish?? Yes. Ruin life?? No.

This particular one is tricky because you have to actually PROVE who sent the pictures/videos. If you can prove without a shadow of a doubt the boyfriend did it, then the punishment would have to be pretty severe. Life altering?? Not sure.

I had a convo with a girl who did this exact thing, and the ex BF was going to court. The parents of the girl were even trying to testify that their daughter is the one who did it.

This is the problem we run into these days with social media and a bunch of horny kids who are doing this stuff at younger and younger ages all the time, obviously no where near mature/experienced enough to have any idea what the ramifications are.

 

[ghostguy123]

And I will say it again, there is a rather enormous percentage of kids out there with child porn on their phones, and they don't even realize it.

 

[whiskey7]

And I will say it again, there is a rather enormous percentage of kids out there with child porn on their phones, and they don't even realize it.

If only there was a way to send a message and let them know...

 

[ghostguy123]

And I will say it again, there is a rather enormous percentage of kids out there with child porn on their phones, and they don't even realize it.

If only there was a way to send a message and let them know...

I agree

You have something that will actually work? Rather than just ruin a few kid's lives that doesnt send a message to anyone but those kids??

Sure, great message. Will work like a charm.

 

[ghostguy123]

It's pretty amazing how some of you are just ok with ruining lives over THIS. THIS!!!

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

. Publishing the video on Twitter was bad though. Really bad. That might be what dooms them. Sounds like it was the only reason they were charged.

Of course it was bad. Of course they need to be punished. But this is NOT one of those crimes where a kid needs to face punishment FOREVER!!!

They didn't rape people and post it online. They didnt beat the snot out of an old lady and basically kill her for money.

The CRIME was clicking a button to let people see the LEGAL activities they participated in. It is bad, real bad, and real stupid................but a major life altering punishment is NOT the solution to that.

I agree to a point, but I think we can agree that the registration requirement is the problem. They engaged in criminal behavior, they were delinquent. There really isn't any debate in that. Without the registration component, the outcome would be pretty "fair" -- no conviction of a crime, some counseling, some community service, a few follow-up visits with the judge/referee, and that's about it. Do you think I'm off-base with the outcome in the juvenile system (again assuming no registration obligations)? I know I'm not off-base in TN, but maybe other states are way different.

Requiring registration is mind-boggling to me, and damn near unconstitutional IMO.

 

[ghostguy123]

. Publishing the video on Twitter was bad though. Really bad. That might be what dooms them. Sounds like it was the only reason they were charged.

Of course it was bad. Of course they need to be punished. But this is NOT one of those crimes where a kid needs to face punishment FOREVER!!!

They didn't rape people and post it online. They didnt beat the snot out of an old lady and basically kill her for money.

The CRIME was clicking a button to let people see the LEGAL activities they participated in. It is bad, real bad, and real stupid................but a major life altering punishment is NOT the solution to that.

I agree to a point, but I think we can agree that the registration requirement is the problem. They engaged in criminal behavior, they were delinquent. There really isn't any debate in that. Without the registration component, the outcome would be pretty "fair" -- no conviction of a crime, some counseling, some community service, a few follow-up visits with the judge/referee, and that's about it. Do you think I'm off-base with the outcome in the juvenile system (again assuming no registration obligations)? I know I'm not off-base in TN, but maybe other states are way different.

Requiring registration is mind-boggling to me, and damn near unconstitutional IMO.

So what are you disagreeing with me on then??

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

. Publishing the video on Twitter was bad though. Really bad. That might be what dooms them. Sounds like it was the only reason they were charged.

Of course it was bad. Of course they need to be punished. But this is NOT one of those crimes where a kid needs to face punishment FOREVER!!!

They didn't rape people and post it online. They didnt beat the snot out of an old lady and basically kill her for money.

The CRIME was clicking a button to let people see the LEGAL activities they participated in. It is bad, real bad, and real stupid................but a major life altering punishment is NOT the solution to that.

I agree to a point, but I think we can agree that the registration requirement is the problem. They engaged in criminal behavior, they were delinquent. There really isn't any debate in that. Without the registration component, the outcome would be pretty "fair" -- no conviction of a crime, some counseling, some community service, a few follow-up visits with the judge/referee, and that's about it. Do you think I'm off-base with the outcome in the juvenile system (again assuming no registration obligations)? I know I'm not off-base in TN, but maybe other states are way different.Requiring registration is mind-boggling to me, and damn near unconstitutional IMO.

So what are you disagreeing with me on then??

I don't know that I am. I'm asking you if you think I'm wrong about the outcome for kids in these situations in the juvenile system that lacks this ridiculous registration requirement.

 

[ghostguy123]

I don't know that I am. I'm asking you if you think I'm wrong about the outcome for kids in these situations in the juvenile system that lacks this ridiculous registration requirement.

Maybe I missed something somewhere, but I dont know what you are asking me.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

I don't know that I am. I'm asking you if you think I'm wrong about the outcome for kids in these situations in the juvenile system that lacks this ridiculous registration requirement.

Maybe I missed something somewhere, but I dont know what you are asking me.

On phone so my quote options are limited:

"Without the registration component, the outcome would be pretty "fair" -- no conviction of a crime, some counseling, some community service, a few follow-up visits with the judge/referee, and that's about it. Do you think I'm off-base with the outcome in the juvenile system (again assuming no registration obligations)? I know I'm not off-base in TN, but maybe other states are way different."

 

[whiskey7]

And I will say it again, there is a rather enormous percentage of kids out there with child porn on their phones, and they don't even realize it.

If only there was a way to send a message and let them know...

I agree

You have something that will actually work? Rather than just ruin a few kid's lives that doesnt send a message to anyone but those kids??

Sure, great message. Will work like a charm.

Perhaps the same mass communication medium these kids used to post their orgy?And let's be real here...if these individuals have reached age 14-16 and it hasn't occurred to them how dumb it is to post stuff like that on the Internet because no one (namely, parents) have helped them understand how dumb it is, I think it's fair to say it's them (if anyone) who is ruining these kid's lives.

But I think "ruining their lives" is a little over dramatic for what is happening here...

 

[ghostguy123]

I don't know that I am. I'm asking you if you think I'm wrong about the outcome for kids in these situations in the juvenile system that lacks this ridiculous registration requirement.

Maybe I missed something somewhere, but I dont know what you are asking me.

On phone so my quote options are limited:

"Without the registration component, the outcome would be pretty "fair" -- no conviction of a crime, some counseling, some community service, a few follow-up visits with the judge/referee, and that's about it. Do you think I'm off-base with the outcome in the juvenile system (again assuming no registration obligations)? I know I'm not off-base in TN, but maybe other states are way different."

Well that obviously should not be the exact punishment for every single case, but it's a start.

I would not be in favor of a punishment that negatively impacts their future (college admittance, jobs, etc.....)

BUt again, each case is unique and should be viewed as such.

 

[ghostguy123]

Perhaps the same mass communication medium these kids used to post their orgy?And let's be real here...if these individuals have reached age 14-16 and it hasn't occurred to them how dumb it is to post stuff like that on the Internet because no one (namely, parents) have helped them understand how dumb it is, I think it's fair to say it's them (if anyone) who is ruining these kid's lives.

But I think "ruining their lives" is a little over dramatic for what is happening here...

If you are being registered as a sex offender, you don't view that as ruining their life? If it isn't ruined, it's pretty damn close. Talk about a headshot to the future earnings potential, not to mention people who will associate with you.

And (of the MANY I have talked to) they know it is stupid, but they have absolutely no idea the legal ramifications of it. Quite a large number of adults don't either.

Maybe try sending a message in the form of actual messages rather than a 1st time offense life ruiner

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

I don't know that I am. I'm asking you if you think I'm wrong about the outcome for kids in these situations in the juvenile system that lacks this ridiculous registration requirement.

Maybe I missed something somewhere, but I dont know what you are asking me.

On phone so my quote options are limited:"Without the registration component, the outcome would be pretty "fair" -- no conviction of a crime, some counseling, some community service, a few follow-up visits with the judge/referee, and that's about it. Do you think I'm off-base with the outcome in the juvenile system (again assuming no registration obligations)? I know I'm not off-base in TN, but maybe other states are way different."

Well that obviously should not be the exact punishment for every single case, but it's a start.

I would not be in favor of a punishment that negatively impacts their future (college admittance, jobs, etc.....)

BUt again, each case is unique and should be viewed as such.

I thought you had some familiarity with the juvenile system? Maybe I misunderstood your involvement.

My earlier rants assumed no registration requirements like they apparently have in Illinois, because the juvenile justice system is designed to protect kids from having permanent issues from decisions made as kids. Literally, after reaching majority it's like the juvenile record ceases to exist almost always.

The "case-by-case" assessment comes from the juvenile judge/referee. And it's a perfect example of why people who live in jurisdictions where those judges are elected should pay attention to those races.

In my experience juvenile judges generally follow the recommendations of staff, and there typically isn't any real desire to find a kid guilty of delinquency because the tools to rehabilitate/deter are in place either way. Lots of judges in TN will just keep continuing cases and resetting them every however many days to be able to keep staff monitoring the kids. It also keeps that cloud of worry hanging over the kids, which isn't a bad thing. After a while, if the kid has done what's been asked of him/her and stayed out of trouble it's dismissed.

 

[ghostguy123]

We must be talking about two different things. I am giving my opinions of what I think about certain punishments, not spitting verbatim of the current laws.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

We must be talking about two different things. I am giving my opinions of what I think about certain punishments, not spitting verbatim of the current laws.

I'm just saying that the outcome for juveniles committing crimes is designed to be confined to their years of minority, which is precisely what would happen to these kids....but for that inane registration requirement. I think the "system" is designed to accomplish exactly what you want to see...but for that inane registration requirement.

Gotta love politicians. They must have some real black-and-white guys running the show in Illinois.

 

[ghostguy123]

We must be talking about two different things. I am giving my opinions of what I think about certain punishments, not spitting verbatim of the current laws.

I'm just saying that the outcome for juveniles committing crimes is designed to be confined to their years of minority, which is precisely what would happen to these kids....but for that inane registration requirement. I think the "system" is designed to accomplish exactly what you want to see...but for that inane registration requirement.

Gotta love politicians. They must have some real black-and-white guys running the show in Illinois.

There are some crimes where I am fully agreeable to juveniles facing lifelong and life altering punishments.

This just isn't one of them. Not even close.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

We must be talking about two different things. I am giving my opinions of what I think about certain punishments, not spitting verbatim of the current laws.

I'm just saying that the outcome for juveniles committing crimes is designed to be confined to their years of minority, which is precisely what would happen to these kids....but for that inane registration requirement. I think the "system" is designed to accomplish exactly what you want to see...but for that inane registration requirement.

Gotta love politicians. They must have some real black-and-white guys running the show in Illinois.

There are some crimes where I am fully agreeable to juveniles facing lifelong and life altering punishments.

This just isn't one of them. Not even close.

Under normal circumstances, this is typically only achieved by transferring kids and trying them as adults. Laws in TN at least have been trending towards more aggressively transferring kids. It used to be pretty tough and could only happen in very limited circumstances. The circumstances are broader now and the hurdles are lower.

 

[cstu]

Also nothing worse than when some 16 your old scorned female gets a hold of her ex BF's cell phone, takes naked pics of herself, and sends them to every social media outlet imaginable. Worse than a fake rape claim.

So we allow a scorned ex BF to send naked pics of his ex because she might do it to set him up?

That's a fact question, not a legal question.

Let?? No. Punish?? Yes. Ruin life?? No.

This particular one is tricky because you have to actually PROVE who sent the pictures/videos. If you can prove without a shadow of a doubt the boyfriend did it, then the punishment would have to be pretty severe. Life altering?? Not sure.

I had a convo with a girl who did this exact thing, and the ex BF was going to court. The parents of the girl were even trying to testify that their daughter is the one who did it.

This is the problem we run into these days with social media and a bunch of horny kids who are doing this stuff at younger and younger ages all the time, obviously no where near mature/experienced enough to have any idea what the ramifications are.

Very easy for a girl to ruin someone's life - teacher failed you? Steal his phone, take a nude photo pretending to be masturbating, send it to the wife.