Athena
Buzzkill.
Hard to say, as I'm not familiar with ALL the options a prosecutor might have at his disposal in that state. In a case like this, though, I'd say too little is better than too much.
-
You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.
- Thread starter Sister Iroz
- Start date
Hard to say, as I'm not familiar with ALL the options a prosecutor might have at his disposal in that state. In a case like this, though, I'd say too little is better than too much.
Harley_Tech
Trusted Member
Well, all this pertains to "Prohibited sexual act" and "simply being nude" does not seem to be a "Prohibited sexual act".
My interpretation of all this info you posted is that unless there is a "Prohibited sexual act", then it's not a violation of 2C:24-4 Endangering welfare of children.
Did I miss something?
R
Maybe her purpose was to pimp herself out for either her own sexual kicks or for others. I doubt she was doing it for the "Look at the mole on my back" factor. While I may post nekked kids doing cute kid things on the toilet, the purpose is far from sexual.
TheMorningStar
is a catcus
I would say it falls under here:
(i)Nudity, if depicted for the purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification of any person who may view such depiction;
EDIT: Well since DV beat me to it, I feel I sould add something.
Notice how that list is missing certain things like French kissing. Does that fall under section j? Watch a documentary called The Cucumber Incident sometime - when that documentary was filmed it did not. It is hardly a perfect statute and acting like it is would be a big mistake.
Last edited:
Rockin Ma
Chauffer specializing in geriatric transport
When I was searching the statutes for NJ and possession of child pornography, this is what I got
I posted the whole statute but regarding nude pics of her being underage I meant this part and I don't think the charges will stick, though maybe I'm missing something and I will re-read the original post:
(4)Any person who photographs or films a child in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act or who uses any device, including a computer, to reproduce or reconstruct the image of a child in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act is guilty of a crime of the second degree.
(5) (a) Any person who knowingly receives for the purpose of selling or who knowingly sells, procures, manufactures, gives, provides, lends, trades, mails, delivers, transfers, publishes, distributes, circulates, disseminates, presents, exhibits, advertises, offers or agrees to offer, through any means, including the Internet, any photograph, film, videotape, computer program or file, video game or any other reproduction or reconstruction which depicts a child engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act, is guilty of a crime of the second degree.
(b)Any person who knowingly possesses or knowingly views any photograph, film, videotape, computer program or file, video game or any other reproduction or reconstruction which depicts a child engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act, including on the Internet, is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.
(6)For purposes of this subsection, a person who is depicted as or presents the appearance of being under the age of 16 in any photograph, film, videotape, computer program or file, video game or any other reproduction or reconstruction shall be rebuttably presumed to be under the age of 16. If the child who is depicted as engaging in, or who is caused to engage in, a prohibited sexual act or simulation of a prohibited sexual act is under the age of 16, the actor shall be strictly liable and it shall not be a defense that the actor did not know that the child was under the age of 16, nor shall it be a defense that the actor believed that the child was 16 years of age or older, even if such a mistaken belief was reasonable.
I posted the whole statute but regarding nude pics of her being underage I meant this part and I don't think the charges will stick, though maybe I'm missing something and I will re-read the original post:
(4)Any person who photographs or films a child in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act or who uses any device, including a computer, to reproduce or reconstruct the image of a child in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act is guilty of a crime of the second degree.
(5) (a) Any person who knowingly receives for the purpose of selling or who knowingly sells, procures, manufactures, gives, provides, lends, trades, mails, delivers, transfers, publishes, distributes, circulates, disseminates, presents, exhibits, advertises, offers or agrees to offer, through any means, including the Internet, any photograph, film, videotape, computer program or file, video game or any other reproduction or reconstruction which depicts a child engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act, is guilty of a crime of the second degree.
(b)Any person who knowingly possesses or knowingly views any photograph, film, videotape, computer program or file, video game or any other reproduction or reconstruction which depicts a child engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act, including on the Internet, is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.
(6)For purposes of this subsection, a person who is depicted as or presents the appearance of being under the age of 16 in any photograph, film, videotape, computer program or file, video game or any other reproduction or reconstruction shall be rebuttably presumed to be under the age of 16. If the child who is depicted as engaging in, or who is caused to engage in, a prohibited sexual act or simulation of a prohibited sexual act is under the age of 16, the actor shall be strictly liable and it shall not be a defense that the actor did not know that the child was under the age of 16, nor shall it be a defense that the actor believed that the child was 16 years of age or older, even if such a mistaken belief was reasonable.
Rockin Ma
Chauffer specializing in geriatric transport
The case comes as prosecutors nationwide pursue child pornography cases resulting from kids sending nude photos to one another over cell phones and e-mail. Legal experts, though, could not recall another case of a child porn charge resulting from a teen's posting to a social networking site.
MySpace would not comment on the New Jersey investigation, but the company has a team that reviews its network for inappropriate images. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children tipped off a state task force, which alerted the Passaic County Sheriff's Office.
The office investigated and discovered the Clifton resident had posted the "very explicit" photos of herself, sheriff's spokesman Bill Maer said Thursday.
"We consider this case a wake-up call to parents," Maer said. The girl posted the photos because "she wanted her boyfriend to see them," he said.
Investigators are looking at individuals who "knowingly" committed a crime, he said, declining to comment further because the case is still being investigated.
The teen, whose name has not been released because of her age, was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography and distribution of child pornography. She was released to her mother's custody.
If convicted of the distribution charge, she would be forced to register with the state as a sex offender under Megan's Law, said state Attorney General Anne Milgram. She also could face up to 17 years in jail, though such a stiff sentence is unlikely.
Some observers — including the New Jersey mother behind the creation of Megan's Law — are criticizing the trend of prosecuting teens who send racy text messages or post illicit photos of themselves.
Maureen Kanka — whose daughter, Megan, became the law's namesake after she was raped and killed at age 7 in 1994 by a twice-convicted sex offender — blasted authorities for charging the 14-year-old girl.
The teen needs help, not legal trouble, she said.
"This shouldn't fall under Megan's Law in any way, shape or form. She should have an intervention and counseling, because the only person she exploited was herself."...
I'm not sure I've seen a prosecution like this coming out of a social networking site," said Seth Kreimer, a constitutional law professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
Milgram, the attorney general, could not recall another such case in New Jersey. She cautioned parents to get on those sites and monitor what their kids are talking about and posting.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gebS2MKqUm9cqEj6s0Rv9gQVvY6AD97608480
MySpace would not comment on the New Jersey investigation, but the company has a team that reviews its network for inappropriate images. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children tipped off a state task force, which alerted the Passaic County Sheriff's Office.
The office investigated and discovered the Clifton resident had posted the "very explicit" photos of herself, sheriff's spokesman Bill Maer said Thursday.
"We consider this case a wake-up call to parents," Maer said. The girl posted the photos because "she wanted her boyfriend to see them," he said.
Investigators are looking at individuals who "knowingly" committed a crime, he said, declining to comment further because the case is still being investigated.
The teen, whose name has not been released because of her age, was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography and distribution of child pornography. She was released to her mother's custody.
If convicted of the distribution charge, she would be forced to register with the state as a sex offender under Megan's Law, said state Attorney General Anne Milgram. She also could face up to 17 years in jail, though such a stiff sentence is unlikely.
Some observers — including the New Jersey mother behind the creation of Megan's Law — are criticizing the trend of prosecuting teens who send racy text messages or post illicit photos of themselves.
Maureen Kanka — whose daughter, Megan, became the law's namesake after she was raped and killed at age 7 in 1994 by a twice-convicted sex offender — blasted authorities for charging the 14-year-old girl.
The teen needs help, not legal trouble, she said.
"This shouldn't fall under Megan's Law in any way, shape or form. She should have an intervention and counseling, because the only person she exploited was herself."...
I'm not sure I've seen a prosecution like this coming out of a social networking site," said Seth Kreimer, a constitutional law professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
Milgram, the attorney general, could not recall another such case in New Jersey. She cautioned parents to get on those sites and monitor what their kids are talking about and posting.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gebS2MKqUm9cqEj6s0Rv9gQVvY6AD97608480
Harley_Tech
Trusted Member
Ok, so the prosecutor needs to prove that she posted them for the purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification of someone/anyone.
If she says, nope, I posted them just because I like the way I look in them. I get no sexual stimulation or gratification from them. I have no idea what others might get from them.
I suspect that the makers of this law worded it this way to prevent prosecutions of the things I mentioned before. To rise to this statute, there needs to be a prohibited sexual act. Simple nudity is not enough to move forward IMO.
I'd say incorrect charging at a minimum. Goes against the spirit of the law to be sure. IMO
R
Last edited:
Harley_Tech
Trusted Member
What I take from her statement is she posted them for him to view, not for the purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification. I don't think they can assign her intentions to that statement.
I believe if a lawyer can't get this charge tossed, he needs to turn in his magic decoder ring.
R
El Supremo
Well-Known Member
I disagree. She's posting the pics for her boyfriend to see. What possible purpose other than sexual stimulation and/or gratification would a teenage girl have for giving nude pics of herself to her boyfriend? "Check out this tattoo on my inner thigh", or "I think I have skin cancer, can you take a look"?
If she had posted the pics for her dermatologist to see, that would be a different story. I think the fact that she admitted they were for her boyfriend makes them sexual in nature by default.
Wicked Doll
Trusted Member
N.J. girl arrested for nude photos unlikely to face jail
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/loca...ed_for_nude_photos_unlikely_to_face_jail.html
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/loca...ed_for_nude_photos_unlikely_to_face_jail.html
If it was NOT for the purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification, why was she naked? Like I said, I doubt it was so she could show off the mole on her back. I don't think it's been THAT long since you were a teen, Harley. LOL
Even so, they may not need to assign intention, she may have stated it perfectly clear in her statement. We just have the snippet that the media provided. Her intention may have been to only titillate him and no others, but under the letter of the law, he is probably well covered in the "any person" designation.
Harley_Tech
Trusted Member
Why are all those Greek statues nude? Why nude paintings in museums?
Why are there not spank benches posted in front of these things if their only purpose is for the purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification?
You mean people can't enjoy another nude human without it being sexual?
Make no mistake in thinking I don't know what her intent was, just as you do.
In every one of the posted parts of the statute it says for the purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification.
Can't a teenager have a non sexual appreciation for the human form? Can you convince 12 people that a teenager CAN'T have a non sexual appreciation for the human form? I mean, "we all know what she was doing", *wink wink* is not beyond a reasonable doubt, that the DA will have to meet.
Making this or any charge stick is not about right, wrong, or what you believe. It's about what you can prove in court. Getting 12 people to agree on what someones intent was, is not easy. Reading these forums should illustrate that to anyone.
I guess the point of the response was missed, ignored or not communicated properly. I believe if a lawyer can't get this charge tossed, he needs to turn in his magic decoder ring.
R
malq
Veteran Member
She is too young to be punished by the penal system. She needs help, self esteem, guidance and some sort of moral compass. She obviously didn't get it from anywhere. She is young enough to teach her the ropes. Glad they let this one go, but concerned she didn't get the help she needs.
