
In ‘sexting’ case, police want to photograph teen in sexually explicit manner - Mz
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/07/09/in-sexting-case-manassas-city-police-want-to-photograph-teen-in-sexually-explicit-manner-lawyers-say/
======
Someone1234
I think it is very telling that the girl wasn't also charged.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is utterly crazy that ANYONE was charged in
this case. It is a victimless crime. But reading between the lines there's a
certain puritanical undertone to all of it.

In most other Western countries this would not be illegal in this way. But the
US is extremely religious and has quite an unhealthy attitude to teenage sex
(which ironically results in one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the
Western world also).

I genuinely wonder how the people who preside over cases like this (e.g. cops,
prosecutor, even the judge) sleep at night. They're actually doing more harm
to everyone (including society) than the supposed "crime."

~~~
tomp
> In most other Western countries this would not be illegal in this way.

I'm not sure about that. Possession of child pornography is a serious crime in
most Western countries, and the courts don't really care about excuses,
explanations, or the fact that the crime is victim-less. Actually, in most
countries, even non-child porn that _looks like_ child porn is illegal
(drawings, computer-generated images, adult actors that look like children,
...).

~~~
rwissmann
Actually, in many countries the courts are much more reasonable with regards
to interpretation and application of the law. Not just that, but they care
about balance between intent of the law, effect and means.

There is no way that say in Germany today the police could get away with
trying to induce and photograph a teenage boy's erection for a sexting
incident. It is such a fundamental violation of human dignity. I cannot even
begin to imagine the press coverage and criminal indictments of the people
involved.

~~~
GFischer
In a very recent case here in Uruguay, an adult had consensual sex with a
14-year old minor, got her pregnant, and made her take an abortion pill.

The girl's mother called the police, and it surfaced that the girl had lied
about her age and name to the man, so he was found guilty but his sentence was
45 days probation only (no jail time) and an 120 day restraining order.

A search for similar cases in the U.S. surfaces: 10 years jail time, 38 years
of jail time, etc..

------
mikestew
The idea of taking a male teen and stimulating his penis to erection for the
purposes of the prosecution sounds nuts, but the nutty part is that it doesn't
sounds nuts to the Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney. Granted, she may just be
saying that as a negotiation tactic, but even that is sociopathic.

But, man, if I lived in that area I would be running for election come the
next round, and I'd beat this story into the ground for the entire campaign.
Not that I'd want the job. I've run for office, and thankfully lost thus far.
But this is one of those times that it's better to have someone who doesn't
know what they're doing (and believe me, there are few less qualified for the
job of AG of VA than I) than to let these nutcases continue to run the asylum.

In this hypothetical case, were I to lose and the incumbents stayed in, this
would be the sign for any VA resident to get the hell out as your neighbors
obviously think this is okay.

As an aside, "special <penis matching> software". Man, I've heard of some
verticals in my day, but I'm hoping that's an outrageously small market. (Of
course, the guy they quoted is just bullshitting.)

~~~
spodek
The police intend to commit child abuse.

There's no other way to put it.

(Besides the sexist application of a misguided law)

~~~
mikestew
I think what the parties involved _intend_ to do is garner votes, fluff their
career, or "just follow orders". What those parties are ignoring, either
willfully or otherwise, is that they have to commit child abuse in order to
achieve those goals. (And, sure, there are probably a few pedophiles in the
chain that are looking forward to the implementation of the Assistant
Attorney's wishes.)

~~~
redfhendrix
While I agree with almost your entire line of thought, your () makes me
facepalm. Wanting to see a 17 year old naked does not make one a pedophile. In
this case it's definitely wrong, a misuse of power, and breaks the law.
However, he is definitely not a prepubescent child.

------
Jemaclus
I'm not really sure if I'm in the minority or not, but I really don't see a
crime happening here. Maybe you ground them and take away their phones, but, I
mean, these kids are under the guardianship of their parents and are
presumably in a relationship that both sets of parents have (at the very
least) acknowledged. It's not like he just sent her the video out of the blue
with no warning.

I don't see a crime here, when both parties are in a relationship and both
consent to the transaction.

I dunno. Maybe I'm naive or something.

~~~
jtokoph
While I think most people generally agree, the idea here is that a minor can't
legally 'consent' because they supposedly aren't mature enough to make
decisions for themselves.

~~~
leot
Except they are, apparently, mature enough to be put in prison for their
decisions and actions.

Funny how that works.

~~~
wldcordeiro
It's a lot like how you can apparently still be liable for your decision if
you drive drunk, but if you have sex drunk you were raped in the eyes of the
law (two drunk people raped each other?)

~~~
DavidJRobertson
> (two drunk people raped each other?)

Don't be silly, it's always the man's fault.

------
jcromartie
The government in this case has completely lost its mind. Let's recap here:

A teenage girl sent pictures to her teenage boyfriend. He is now charged with
receiving child pornography.

The teenage boy sent a video back to his teenage girlfriend. He is now charged
with manufacturing child pornography.

In order to gather evidence, the government is seeking a warrant to take
sexual pictures of the person whose own self-produced picture is considered
child pornography.

The authorities have stated that they are doing this to warn kids of the
dangers of sexting. The dangers are, precisely, that the government is out of
their fucking mind and will go to any length to prosecute people over any
absurd bullshit it possibly can.

~~~
antidaily
figuratively but yes, yes it has.

------
ignu
To prove a 17 year-old committed child pornography by recording himself, a
bunch of adults are going to stimulate and photograph his penis.

Makes sense.

~~~
cwt
Is it legal to commit a felony to catch a felon? i.e: Forcibly manufacture
child porn to prove he manufactured child porn.

~~~
valar_m
>Is it legal to commit a felony to catch a felon?

Happens all the time. For example:

[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/fbi-busted-child-
porn-...](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/fbi-busted-child-porn-site-
ran-2-weeks-article-1.1359627)

------
byerley
"the case began when the teen’s 15-year-old girlfriend sent photos of herself
to the 17-year-old, who in turn sent her the video in question."

For fuck's sake.

Actual intercourse between the two would be punishable by at most a $250 fine
in Virginia since the boy is a minor and the girl is less than three years
younger - if anyone was wondering.

~~~
jules
It shouldn't be punishable at all.

~~~
lvh
GP was clearly stating how _Virginia law_ says it should be punished, not how
they personally believe it should be.

~~~
jules
I know.

------
moomin
Since what they're proposing seems to be straight-up sexual assault, should we
not be prosecuting the proposers and their accomplices e.g. the judge.

If not, exactly what else is legal if you've got a "search warrant"?
Securities Fraud? Drug dealing? Arson? Murder?

------
lazyant
"Police also arrested the teen and took him to juvenile jail, where Foster
said they took photos of the teen’s genitals against his will." \- charge the
police with creation and possession of child pornography.

~~~
DanBC
That was a disturbing detail and I wondered how it was legal for them to do
that.

------
jrockway
So he's being charged with "producing child pornography" but the poronography
is of himself? That can't be the law's intent.

This is wrong on so many levels that I'm getting a headache.

------
downandout
The case is absurd. The prosecutor in the case is trying to make a name for
himself, and unfortunately in our system that is completely legal.

However, requesting, issuing, and following this order could quite easily fall
under conspiracy to produce child pornography. The prosecutor that made the
request, any doctors involved, the judge that signed the order, and the police
involved in carrying it out could potentially all be federally indicted and/or
sued for this. They are immune from prosecution and lawsuits except in cases
of blatantly illegal conduct, where this clearly falls.

------
DanielBMarkham
This is insane, no doubt, but a bit of context for those who haven't seen this
happen before. I was in a very similar situation many years ago before
sexting.

Most times an 17-year-old dates somebody a year or two younger and everything
is fine: nobody cares what they're doing. Parents like the kid, the kids
behave well, and nobody is the wiser.

Every now and then, however, mom and dad hate the bozo that's dating little
Chris. So they try to stop it, but that doesn't work. So they drag the cops in
and demand that somebody "do something" Over the years, more and more laws
have been set up to "do something", usually about child predation, not this
scenario.

In most of these cases, the cops try to calm things down by trying to de-
escalate. But sometimes this does not work, so the Commonwealth's Attorney
throws the book at the older partner.

It gets worse when the older kid is 17 because there's a time element to it.
You charge them as a 17-year-old, they've got a chance to have it all expunged
when they reach adulthood. You charge them as an 18-year-old, the mess just
gets bigger. Meanwhile the parents (and perhaps the community) is out for
blood.

I was lucky in that no charges were pressed, but parents can get _very_ angry
-- like come over to your house and shoot you angry. The law in this case is
probably the lesser of two evils. I imagine the way the cops want it to play
out is that the DA charges the adult with 57 felonies, the kid gets a lawyer,
they strike a deal and reduce them all to a misdemeanor and probabtion with
the condition that the dating pair stay apart. Parents are happy, society is
happy.

I'm not saying I agree with any of this. It's completely nuts. And you can
always run into a true believer DA who really is on a crusade. Quite frankly
this erect penis nonsense sounds like that might be what we have here. And
that's a freaking scary situation. But most of the time this is just a case of
using a hammer to kill a fly that keeps landing on your knee.

Having said all of that, the law is insane and must be fixed. Just wanted to
point out that sometimes these things don't look as completely crazy from the
inside as they do from the outside.

~~~
nmrm
> Parents are happy, society is happy.

Except the kid, who will now have to live with legally sanctioned sexual
assault.

------
TeMPOraL
After reading that I got outraged like everyone else, but thinking about this
again, I believe @fragsworth downthread has a good point [0].

Because what is more likely - that the prosecution went batshit insane, or
that the journalist is plain lying to us, omitting relevant details in order
to spin it into a small scandal? Hint: think of every time a story was
reported about something you had first-hand knowledge about.

There's a widely known scandal in my country that is often repeated as an
argument for the great injustice of our IRS. The story, as told by national TV
and paper, is that a baker was ruthlessly taxed (and subsequently put out of
business) for leftover bread that he gave to an orphanage for free instead
throwing it away. "Oh, the evil government is punishing good people", cried
the nation. It grew into such a big media mess that the IRS decided to publish
a detailed report from tax control of this baker. Apparently, apart from
giving food to poor, he was also running a tax avoidance scheme on half of his
merchandise, stealing tons of money.

So please just keep in mind that spreading blatant lies is the basic principle
news publishing nowdays.

[0] -
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8010752](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8010752)

------
NDizzle
17 and 15? Two felonies?

Boy am I glad smartphones weren't a thing when I was in high school! I'd be
off the wrong end of death row already - along with almost everyone in my
graduating class.

------
tokenizerrr
How is this not rape and manufacturing child pornography (by the police)? If
they intend to forcefully give him an erection and take naked pictures of him,
it sure sounds like it.

------
scelerat
My first reaction was that the absurdity level is so high, there has to be an
ulterior motive for the prosecutor here, to expose how ridiculous it is to
prosecute children for normal, healthy (if potentially socially risky) sexual
experimentation.

------
whiddershins
So, basically, in order to protect him from himself, they are going to engage
in many of the abusive behaviors child pornography laws are intended to
protect children from, and then put him in jail.

------
csense
I can't think of a more unreasonable search and seizure.

If this is "search" is carried out, I would want to see every one of the
participating officers and medical personnel go to jail for rape.

------
hoggle
These laws are insane and so are the executive authorities and their means of
operation. What happened to common sense?

------
PeterGriffin
So, we're all very very angry and we'll... do what about it?

Nothing.

This is hardly the first time this happens. There are about half a dozen cases
of this kind in mainstream media every year. Plenty more go unreported.
Nothing changes, because everyone feels comfortable being outraged talking
about it, but they wouldn't touch the problem with a 20 foot pole when it
comes to acting about it.

