Showing posts with label sexting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexting. Show all posts

Saturday, December 19, 2015

GateHouse: Perspective lacking when it comes to punishing sexting

Matthew T. Mangino
GateHouse Media
December 18, 2015
To paraphrase a well-known maxim, the road to “disaster” is paved with good intentions. No doubt, the effort by prosecutors, and lawmakers, to deal with the proliferation of sexually graphic photographs delivered electronically has been with good intentions--yet some cases have undoubtedly been a disaster.
As long as human beings have walked on the face of the earth, the younger version of the species has been curious about the carnal aspects of life. That hasn’t changed, nor will it ever. In this modern techno-driven era school-aged children, adolescent and younger, can do things that were unfathomable only a little more than a decade ago. A student can take a photograph with a cellphone and immediately post that photograph on the Internet for literally all the world to see.
When those photographs are sexually explicit and posted without the subject’s consent, the conduct should be criminal and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Sexting, which typically involves sending sexually explicit photos or messages via cellphone, is a new phenomenon that emerged with the increased use of cellphone cameras by teens.
When two consenting teens, exploring their sexuality, exchange photographs through texting neither the police, nor the courts, should be involved.
The ridiculousness of subjecting the consenting teens to criminal liability is heightened by the fact that 16 and 17-year-olds in most states are considered adults in order to consent to sex. Therefore, it is legal for them to have sexual intercourse with each other, but not to share sexually oriented photographs of themselves with each other.
In North Carolina, 16-year-old high school sweethearts traded nude cellphone pictures. There was no evidence of coercion or harassment. But under a literal interpretation of state law, each had distributed child pornography.
This past February, prosecutors charged the two teenagers with the felony of “exploiting a minor,” which could have brought them years in prison and decades on the sex offender registry.
According to the New York Times, whether and how to charge sexting teenagers has become “a quandary for prosecutors nationwide, forcing them to weigh when to muster the harsh force of criminal justice, often with ill-fitting laws from a pre-Internet era, and when to back off and let schools and families deal with youthful indiscretions.”
According to a 2012 study in the Archive of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine 28 percent of teens reported having sent a naked picture of themselves through text or e-mail and 31 percent reported having asked someone for a sext.
In Pennsylvania, a law enacted in 2012 provided more wiggle room for authorities dealing with teenage sexters. A teen that transmits photos of a minor 12 or younger will face felony child pornography charges. However, under the new law, it is a summary offense, similar to the severity of a traffic violation, for a minor older than 12 to electronically transmit any picture of himself or herself, or to knowingly view or possess an image of another minor older than 12.
As a result, in Pennsylvania if a 14-year-old texts a nude picture of himself to his girlfriend, it is a summary offense. If his girlfriend has the picture on her phone, she may also be charged as well.
Teen sexting has other consequences even if no criminal charges are filed. Students who take, possess, or share sexts can run afoul of school rules. Sharing private photographs electronically can cause lasting damage to a young person’s reputation. When explicit images are shared the subject of those images is often humiliated resulting in problems at school, with relationships and even depression and suicide.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner’s Toll, 2010 was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino.

To visit column CLICK HERE

Friday, December 11, 2015

Children vulnerable to sexual predators on the Internet ?

Online sex offender statutes—not to mention press coverage, social analysis, education, parenting advice, and general fretting that goes with them—are built on nothing but fear, reported the Boston Review.
The underlying assumption is that Internet communication is fundamentally different from other means of communication. But not just different, the laws suggest. It is more dangerous. Specifically, it is dangerous to children, and in a particular way: sexually. The stated intent of these laws is to protect children from “Internet predators”—even if those predators are themselves. But as a growing body of research shows, the Internet is not especially sexually dangerous for kids—not more dangerous than anywhere else. 
Online sexual solicitation of minors is rare and getting rarer. A comparison of three successive national surveys of kids aged ten to seventeen found that those receiving such come-ons dropped 50 percent from 2000 to 2010, to just 9 percent. At the same time, “the proportion of such crimes committed by offenders who use the Internet to meet victims is quite small in comparison to sex crimes against children overall,” according to a 2010 study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health and Medicine. During the period studied, the mid-aughts, there were 615 arrests for such offenses. Meanwhile, an estimated 14 million young people aged twelve to seventeen were accessing social media sites.
The study is part of ongoing research on online sexual and criminal behavior conducted by the University of New Hampshire’s Crimes Against Children Research Center, considered a foremost authority on such matters. The researchers there also found that adults who meet minors online for sexual purposes “are not different or more dangerous” than those who seek sex with kids they already know, either online or on terra firma.
Contrary to the image of the grizzly fifty-year-old satyr scattering emoticons across the screen like a middle-schooler, hardly anyone is deceiving anyone about their age or sexual intentions. In fact, the only people routinely lying about their identities are vice cops lurking in chat rooms posing as thirteen- or fourteen-year-olds. In the 2010 study of adult-minor sexual contacts through social media, almost three-quarters of the cases originated with investigators in sting operations, closer examination of which frequently reveals entrapment.
Another finding: the dirty old men are not old, the child victims aren’t children, and the sex is usually not sex. The typical online solicitor is a young man, eighteen to twenty-five years old, chatting up a slightly younger person, fourteen to seventeen. Research published by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children found that only 4 percent of online sex crimes against minors implicated older men. Similarly, models appearing in “child” pornography are mostly adolescents. Sensational coverage notwithstanding, porn videos may be made by the teen models themselves, who are seeking a sense of power and, of course, profit. Pornographic images of very young kids are rare. Not surprisingly, most of the cases of illicit “sex” initiated do not go beyond fingers on a keyboard. In one of those three national telephone surveys—this one encompassing 1,500 ten-to-seventeen-year-olds, conducted in 2005—only four youth had “physical contact [they] would call sexual” during face-to-face meetings with adults they met online.
To read more CLICK HERE

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Changes to the PA Crimes Code for 2013

The Pennsylvania General Assembly one of the highest paid legislatures in the country was busy in 2012.  The leglislature, made up of  203 house members and 50 senators, passed approximately 300 new laws many of which are being implemented in 2013.

Here is an overview of some of the new crime related laws, which went into effect on January 1, as described by the  Beaver County Times:

UNDERAGE DRINKING FINES

For the first time since the 1970s the Legislature has increased the fines for underage drinking. Prior to this year, the fine has been set at a maximum of $300. Now, a first-offense underage-drinking conviction carries a fine of $500, and a second-offense fine doubles to $1,000.

WIRETAP LAWS

Wiretap laws are set to expire periodically and are reviewed by legislators on a regular basis. Under the previous laws, if police wanted to tap someone’s phone, they had to have a specific phone number and have the district attorney or attorney general go before the court and establish probable cause to get permission to tap that phone line.

With the proliferation of mobile phones -- and in particular disposable phones -- by the time investigators were able to get a warrant to tap the phone line, the person had tossed the phone and gotten a new one.The new law allows investigators to get permission to intercept the phone calls made to a specific individual, not a specific phone number.

SEXTING

Sexting was considered child pornography under previous laws, even if it was a minor sending a photo to another minor. The changed law allows prosecutors to evaluate sexting on a case-by-case basis.

MEGAN’S LAW

There are numerous changes to Megan’s Law this year. One of the changes regarding who must register under Megan’s Law is retroactive.

New crimes have been added to the list of crimes for which someone must register under Megan’s Law. Anyone who is now required to register under Megan’s Law will receive written notification by the state police or probation and parole.

TRAINING FOR SCHOOL EMPLOYEES

Following the Jerry Sandusky scandal at Penn State University, lawmakers have enacted new requirements for schools regarding the possible sexual abuse of students. Schools are now required to train their employees to look for signs of possible abuse in a student and to educate school employees about mandated reporting requirements for suspected abuse.

ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS

It is now a crime to euthanize an animal using carbon monoxide poisoning or drowning.

To read more: http://m.timesonline.com/mobile/news/police_fire_courts/new-year-brings-host-of-new-laws/article_33f31c55-850e-5855-a10e-99a0c6c04ebb.html