posted
Sometimes punishment makes problems worse. Punishment often puts offenders in contact with people who can teach them to be worse offenders, and it stigmatizes them as well. Now, in general, I would say that the risks of not punishing criminals outweigh the risks of puishing them. But I don't see this girl as a criminal. I don't believe that legal punishment will help her out. I think that's a recipe for losing a kid. Also, given that convicted sex offenders are saddled with a title that follows them for life, as well as the obligation to inform neighbors, employers, etc. of that title, the punishment here is way too harsh.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since she is a minor I doubt she can be prosecuted the same way.
And I don't know that the "sex offender" label can actually be given to her as a felony that she will entirely carry around with her for the rest of her life. I know the rules for prosecuting minors as adults are very specific, though I don't know what those specifics are.
My answer to Icarus is "no" because there is nothing intrinsic about the age of 6 months (or any other age) that provides the evidence that the child can't choose. Heck, there is nothing intrinsic about being 1 day old that necessarily implies you can't be singing and dancing the Macarena, but that doesn't mean it's ever going to happen.
Yes, it is not impossible for a 6-month-old to know of sex, have the capacity to choose to do it, the desire to do so, and the communication skills to clearly express that choice. But many things are technically possible that we don't really have to worry about ever happening.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taking this out of the charged environment of a discussion about child sex, I think I'd have to disagree with you when you say
quote:Heck, there is nothing intrinsic about being 1 day old that necessarily implies you can't be singing and dancing the Macarena
I'd say that there is a level of physical development necessary to have the strength and coordination to do either of these, wouldn't you? I'd argue that it's physically impossible for a 1 day old human to have either the strength or the coordination to do that.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xap, from your logic can I assume that you are a pro-life-from-conception advocate?
There are so many assumptions being tossed around here. Mainly that she's just an innocent kid. The same people who say she's just a innocent kid also say she could consent.
I'm saddened that she was jailed. I proposed parental prosecution because I feel someone should be punished. Maybe a hefty fine might do something to help chill this behavior. And counseling.
I have in fact known someone who said she was a victim of sex abuse and convicted of prostitution. I feel she was to be pitied. But I was also really angered that she would go and apply for work at a day care center, and that she was hired. Now she may have just been a compulsive liar about the other stuff. But within a week she was theorizing that a child at the center had been abused. Now because this woman with whatever is going on with her is working there, some kid's dad may have been prosecuted, perhaps for no good reason.
The story has a happy ending, she lost her job because she kept sleeping in.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd say that there is a level of physical development necessary to have the strength and coordination to do either of these, wouldn't you? I'd argue that it's physically impossible for a 1 day old human to have either the strength or the coordination to do that.
Yes, but the key word is intrinsic. It is not intrinsic in being 1 day old that you can't dance. A highly physically developed 1-day-old could conceivably be born by some twist of the normal rules of biology and she would be able to dance.
quote:Xap, from your logic can I assume that you are a pro-life-from-conception advocate?
Do you mean anti-abortion? I believe abortions are bad but should be legal.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me rephrase, Pooka. I claim to be a victim of sex abuse and I have, in my checkered past, paid a prostitute for sexual favors, though I was not convicted of so doing.
So how do you feel about me having 4 kids and a 5th on the way?
Can you see the prejudice in your statements, now?
Maybe you aren't telling us everything you know, but on the surface, it sounds to me like you are treating this woman very unfairly.
Ok, this is getting way too personal and I'm gonna ruin this thread by injecting myself into it over and over again.
I'll be quiet, now. Please go on. I'm not bowing out because I don't think it's important, that's for sure.
posted
Ok... I don't approve of child porn, aka: abusing children to make porn... but arresting someone for puting up their OWN pictures that they took THEMSELVES is, if not terribly wrong, then really strange...
I'm with pooka on this... I'm not happy that she was jailed. Puting her in therapy is a better idea.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I definitely do NOT agree with charging the parents, unless some evidence of their wrongdoing is uncovered. Sometimes people don't realize that children and teens will occasionally do wrong regardless of the quality of their parenting. Sometimes it is because they don't have kids themselves. Sometimes it because they had kids who turned out to be angels. But when a kid is not an angel, it is not always a sign of bad parenting. Kids are individuals, and sometimes they will do what they will do. This is a pet peeve of mine, because I am the parent of special needs children, with behavioral issues, and I hate being judged to be an inferior parent because I have more to deal with than some parents do.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Damn. What she did was wrong, but I guess its her parents fault for not watching what he daughter does, maybe not, but still, they've should know that their daughter was doing these things. I still thinks its wrong that the police arrested her, but I don't think they treated her that bad, after all, she is a minor. How can you commit a crime to your own self? keeps me wondering. Maybe the parents should've been charged instead.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree it isn't the parents fault. Not that they couldn't have done SOME things to discourage the probability of it.
For instance, in our home, our main computer (hooked to internet) is in the CENTER of the house -- dining room, right next to front door/kitchen, on the path to Living Room. Most people would think that is inconvenient, but I put it there years ago so that at any time I was walking by I could glance at the screen to see what the kids were doing. Five us in the house. There is NO privacy in this room. So, obviously, it greatly discourages their "curiousity" about certain sites, etc. I don't have any blockers or filters, because someone is around.
The only time this didn't prove effective was when middle son had to stay home alone a short time while taking daughter to school. But I check history/cookies, and he got busted once, and was never given the opportunity again.
We discussed this article at work and can see how it makes sense to charge her (even though we don't necessarily agree that charging is the right reaction). Pornography, definition, is a certain thing. Child Pornography is the solicitation (distribution) of any pornography of someone under 16. So it IS child porn. She was NOT charged with deliquency of a minor, or any crime against the body of the person involved. Just charged with distribution of child porn.
posted
Ic, there is a lot more to the story and I am no longer friends with this woman. I don't know if we ever really were friends. As you would extend this logic, if that's how I think of my friends, you would hate to be mine, right? She was a weird mix of victim and psychologically abusive to me. Anyway, I don't want to go further into this to the point of giving personally identifying situations. But I do know of one case where she presented false evidence to support her story that was her main excuse for hanging out with me.
By the way, I've had a couple of therapists/healers tell me I have signs of having been sexually abused. But I don't remember anything. Which really bugs me because I pride myself on having a detailed and intact memory. I figure if something comes back, fine. If nothing ever does, I guess the restoration of my memory in my hoped for afterlife may be weird. Just as a tangent, here, not to say I'm the sex abuse spokes child. I think these people saying I've repressed memories of sex abuse is really annoying. And now if I recovered any memories, why should I trust them?
P.S. Farmgirl- do you have linkage to a less vague article? The link article lists child sex abuse as a charge.
posted
That's weird -- I'm trying to find a secondary confirmation of this news article (instead of only the one from the original link). When I use Google News to do a search, it finds another article with exactly the same title from the Register (UK) dated April 5th, but the article is no longer available..... so I can't see if it is referencing the same thing...
quote: And now if I recovered any memories, why should I trust them?
You shouldn't. Memories are too easy to implant or fabricate to believe something because someone suggested a memory to you.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: ...performing a variety of sexual acts....She has been charged with sexual abuse of children
If this article is for real and she has been charged with sexual abuse "of children," then I have to conclude that part of the sexual acts she photographed involved other minors. If she only photographed herself, then it should read "charged with sexual abuse of a child . My guess is she got funky with someone who they can't identify.
I wish they either gave more info OR we could find another link to corroborate the story.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I said, keep and eye on her, I didn't mean put a surveyllence(?) camera on her 24/7. What i ment, was to have more supervision on her. I'm happy SOMEONE got my point on what I ment, because that's true, you should place a computer where parents will see what their child is looking at. There is, after all, so many things besides porn that parents wouldn't want their children to look at.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My kids also have computers in their rooms. Those machine just don't happen to connect to the internet. They can play games, do schoolwork, etc on them. But only use internet on the one downstairs.
posted
I know someone here where I work, who is a wonderful person and works her rear off being the best mother she can. She is a single mother, I'm not sure what happened to the father. Her first son is currently going to a community college and planning on transferring to a 4 year college in the fall. Has his act together in other words.
The second son that has one more year of high school, just got in a conflict last night and had a police report filed about him. He snuck out around midnight via the basement window, because they don't have it nailed shut (it sound like nailing it shut will be happening today as well as the forfeiture of his cell phone)
I *know* this woman is a pretty decent mother. Not obviously lenient or obviously strict IMO. One son is doing just fine for himself. So even within a family it is impossible to generalize about the parents based on the children.
posted
I guess it depends on their nature too. When I said that computers should be used with a parent's supervision I really ment internet. Sorry, its just that most computer's I'm around in have access to it, so I get reallly frustrated when a compy doesn't. Internet is my life...@.@
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe in that state, showing porn to kids is child abuse? So if the people she sent it to were adults, she was distributing porn but if they were minors, she was causing them to be sexually abused? I know this is a reach, but it's possible. I know in Utah, seeing one of your parents beat the other is child abuse. That way the children can be removed even if the beatee won't press charges.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I expected some friction from this crowd, but you guys are nuts.
She does not need counseling. At that age finding a place where you don't feel insecure about your strange new self sounds like heaven. In the real world, the queen bitch at the "popular" table makes snotty comments to her giggly followers when you walk by, and boys will say anything (usually false) for a chance in your pants. If you have the slightest worry that some part is too big or too small, fashion magazines will be happy to sell you the answer: yes. Depending on the Internet as your source of self-worth might indicate issues, but (a) there's no evidence of that (b) I was dependent on the Internet in the same way when I was 15, only with text, and I turned out ok. I call it growing up.
The viewers do not need punishment. If you think the Jason Biggs character in American Pie needed to be locked up for the webcam stunt, I don't think I can even discuss this intelligently. (If you do, chime in anyway, as I'm sure to be fascinated by your logic.)
So let's take the most egregious case: a significantly older person downloads images which he knows were not taken with full, adult, informed consent. What should happen? Dagonee was quick to dismiss my "anti-police canard" but I think an examination of the entire situation -- socially, structurally, legally -- is in order. Before we begin, I'll cut this post short and take a quick poll: do you support the War on Drugs?
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Not to be snarky, it's just that I'm already realizing that the things I use on my son do NOT work with my daughter.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, I think she meant she tried to instil the same Values and Morals in each child, not that she treated them like a production line. Of course, each child is different, but the relative healthines or unhealthiness of the emotinal home environment remains basically the same.
posted
I'm just saying that all kids react differently to the setup they're in. It's nearly impossible to create a different world for your different children in one home, so there's almost no way around it. But I think it explains, partly, how good parents can have some good kids and some...iffy ones. Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thats what I ment with nature. Just like Peter was a natural sadist, val was always naturally compassionate.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This situation strikes me as being analogous to arresting a child for masturbating, since manual stimulation of a child is molestation.
The analogy to a child firing a gun doesn't hold any water, because all people have a sex drive, but there is no innate drive to fire a gun (although there may be an innate drive toward violence).
I know of a situation where a girl was molested from the time she was 7 until the time she was 20. She wasn't emotionally strong enough to tell her molester to stop until she reached that age. Did it stop being molestation when she turned 18, simply because she reached the age of "consent?"
I don't think there are any clear answers in this case, but I agree with Jim-Me that arresting this girl is innappropriate.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are many acts that, when performed on someone else are a crime, but when performed on oneself are not. If I walk into my little brother's room and slash his arm up with a razor blade, they'd put me in prison. If I slash up my own arm, the court can't and won't do anything. The question of crime really centers for me on who the victim is. I can not be guilty of assault for damaging my own person. So I guess my problem is this: in the case of child pornography I'm fairly sure the victim is presumed to be the child pictured. Thus, while this girl's behaior is destructive, I don't understand how it is illegal.
I think there is another issue here that hasn't been addressed, and that is the first amendment implications. Pornography has been acceptd by the Supreme Court on many occasions as speech protected by the first amendment. The restriction as regards child pornography is justified with the philosophy that the production of the child porn necessarily implies another crime, namely molestation or lewd acts or some atrocity. So the pornography is banned not because of itself, but because of its horrendous method of pruduction. If I remember correctly there was a Supreme Court case the other year where CG child pornography was declared legal, i.e. if you can make it without commiting molestation you can create child porn to your perverted little heart's content. Wouldn't it follow that if the child is not coerced, her first amendment rights can not reasonably be limited, since she can clearly not molest herself. I think if the parents really wanted to they could take this one all the way up the justice system.
That being said, this girl seriously needs counseling.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
